Tag Archives: Single Payer

By What Right?

In the annals of Western history, two courageous men stood up and challenged the establishment of their nations to act to change history or to right a grievous wrong done to an innocent man.

The first individual was Patrick Henry when he gave his “Give me liberty, or give me death” speech, and the second was Émile Zola, who wrote “J’Accuse…!,” which he wrote in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, imprisoned falsely on Devil’s Island for treason.

These, of course were not the only instances where men of good intention, rallied people to a just and rightful cause; but it was the two instances that came to mind after reading another health care expert poo-poo Medicare for All on social media.

The individual commented on an article in Healthcare Dive.com that I had discussed some days ago. The article was about how kidney care in the US was being revamped, and the individual claimed that Medicare for All would damage the care dialysis patients are currently receiving.

What this person is doing is trying to scare people with propaganda that is akin to saying Medicare for All is “Socialism.” We know that none of the countries that have such a system are Socialist. They are Capitalist. The scare tactic being used here is rationing of care. It so happens that my clinic company is a European company, and I don’t believe people in their home country are rationed dialysis care. And they have a single payer system.

In the past few days, I have seen several comments made by men and women in occupations related to, or in the health care industry. These comments generally have attacked the very idea of Medicare for All for a variety of reasons. Many of these individuals are either a part of the medical-industrial complex, or they are lawyers, employee benefits consultants, or other types of consultants to specific areas of health care. They are defending a turf.

These individuals believe they can supersede the right of all Americans to have decent, affordable health care that does not force them into bankruptcy, or to go without because they cannot afford treatment for serious illnesses or diseases, or expensive medications.

Those of you who have been reading my blog of late, know that I have been very passionate about enacting Medicare for All, either because a fellow blogger has written so eloquently about it, or for personal reasons.

So, I have decided, like M. Zola did, to declare openly: By What Right?

By what right do you have to deny millions of Americans health care? By what right do you have to even suggest that Medicare for All is too expensive, would do more harm than good, or any of the other remarks made on social media to attack the very notion of health care for all?

By what right do you have to consign others to a broken, complex, complicated, bloated, and out of control health care system, whose true aim is to line the pockets of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, hospitals, Wall Street investors, or the shareholders of these and other companies?

I don’t mind constructive criticism of this plan or that plan put forth by any number of Congressmen or Senators, but to outright state that it won’t work, or should not work, is to deny the rest of the nation the same kind of health care that the members of Congress receive.

By what right do you have to tell the millions of uninsured and under-insured, “sorry, we don’t believe in Medicare for All, so you will just have to suffer, so that we can keep our jobs, and collect our fat paychecks.”

I have yet to hear a logical answer to why the US should be the only Western nation to not provide its citizens with universal health care. Some say it is too expensive. Do you mean, it is more expensive than spending taxpayer money on weapons of war? Or on a wall on our Southern border? Or a space force?

Do you mean that it would raise taxes, first on the wealthy and corporations, and later everyone else? Well, maybe the rich and the corporations should pay more in taxes. Polls seem to indicate that as much lately.

Another line of attack says that providers would be hurt. Do you mean that certain very wealthy physicians, surgeons and specialists, would see their incomes cut in half? Do you mean that hospitals could not buy each other up and become larger conglomerations that raises health care costs, instead of lowering them?

I thought medicine was a calling, not a get-rich quick scheme.

Oh, and what about the pharmaceutical industry that uses Americans as a cash cow while the same drugs, manufactured overseas, by the same companies, cost a fraction of what they do here, and have made men like current Federal pen occupant, Martin Shkreli, a wealthy man. Why not allow Americans to import those very same drugs from Canada, the UK, Israel, Mexico, etc. so that they can have their insulin and other life-saving medications without having to cut the dosages in half or go without altogether.

By what right do you have to defend the status quo? To make huge and obscene profits? As I wrote in Health Care Is Not a Market:

“…they are deciding that they have the right to tell the rest of us that we must continue to experience this broken, complex and complicated system just so that they can make money. And that they have a right to prevent us from getting lower cost health care that provides better outcomes and does not leave millions under-insured or uninsured.”

“…not all these individuals are doing this because of their jobs. Some are doing so because they are wedded to an economic and political ideology based on the free market as the answer to every social issue, including health care. They argue that if we only had a true free market, competitive health care system, the costs would come down.”

“…the free market companies have jacked up the prices simply because they can, and because lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry have forced Congress to pass a law forbidding the government from negotiating prices, as other nation’s governments do.”

Instead of trying to tear down Medicare for All, why not offer your expertise and knowledge to improving the Medicare for All bills introduced to Congress, as well as other plans, especially the proposal by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP)?

Those of you who are not familiar with the legislative process, something that at times has been compared to the production of sausages, it isn’t pretty. There is a lot of negotiating and horse-trading that occurs before a bill is passed and signed into law. Unfortunately, given a Republican President, and his lapdog, Republican Senate, none of the introduced pieces of legislation will pass the Senate, even if the House passes it.

So, consider this, by what right do you have to step in the way of progress for all Americans to get health care? By what right do you have to put your economic interests ahead of the health needs of others? By what right do you have to be cruel and inhumane, to let people die, get sick, and suffer needlessly, just so that you can sleep at night?

I hope that once you do consider this, you won’t sleep at night, because it would mean that you are not just greedy little cogs in the medical-industrial complex, but rather, kind and compassionate human beings who are motivated more out of love, than out of what’s in it for you if things don’t change.

By what right do you have to tear down something that has not even been passed and implemented? Why don’t we enact Medicare for All, and see if all the criticisms you have will come true or not? Could it be because you know deep in your heart it will, but are afraid to say so for fear of what your colleagues would say?

And finally, by what right do you have to play God with other people’s lives? You have already predicted that Medicare for All will fail, so why even bother? You are basing your opinions on what you have been told by free market ideologues, academics, business leaders, Conservative media, and politicians.

So, who cares if the poor die, if the elderly die, if children born with crippling illnesses and diseases die, if young people stricken down in the prime of life die, etc., as long as someone can make a hefty profit off of adverse selection, and the outrageous cost of desperately needed medications that they cannot afford?

I know what you are going to say to yourselves, and to me. That I don’t know what I am talking about, that I am wrong on so many levels, that I don’t have the experience in health care that you do. Well, I really don’t care what you will say. Do you have compassion and concern for your fellow citizens, or are you minions of a heartless, soulless Capitalist system that grinds people down for profits and wealth?

Patrick Henry stirred a people to revolution against a tyrant, Émile Zola rallied a nation to free a man unjustly accused and sentenced to hard labor in the most horrible prison ever constructed by Western man.

You can do what is right. You can defend Medicare for All, and even improve on what has already been proposed, but don’t attack it. Doing so will only cause more pain and suffering to millions of Americans, and will make investors, stockholders and providers and industry leaders wealthier, and the rest of us, poorer. Both spiritually and materially.

You are better than this.

Provider Reimbursements under Medicare for All

Yesterday, Healthcare Dive.com posted an article outlining the various proposals for a public health insurance program.

While it did not cover new ground, there was one part that made me curious as to why it was a big deal. It had to do with provider reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid being lower, and if a single payer system was enacted, providers would see less in reimbursements.

Here is what Healthcare Dive said:

“Providers are already taking up arms against any expanded public health plan. Since Medicare and Medicaid tend to pay less than private payers, more government reimbursement would mean less money in hospitals’ coffers.”

Really?

Excuse me if I sound a little confused, but if you expand the number of persons covered for health insurance, even though you are being paid less under such a plan, won’t you still make more money than if the number of persons covered was smaller?

So for example, if x number of Americans are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, and the providers are reimbursed at a high amount without a single payer plan, wouldn’t covering all 300+ million Americans under single payer, mean that providers would make just about the same, or maybe even more than before single payer?

If providers were paid $1,000 for each of 200 covered individuals in the current system, totaling $20,000 for example, then by raising the number of covered under Medicare for All to let’s say, 3000, providers would be paid $800 for each covered person, then they would make $2.4 million. And for arguments sake, if there were fifty providers, then without MFA they each would make $400 each, but with MFA, they would make $48,000 each. Not bad.

So why are providers up in arms? Could it be that they are engaged in a financial version of adverse selection by wanting to only take private insurance reimbursements, and not single payer?

Or maybe that is part of the problem with our health care system? Pure, unadulterated greed.

These are the world’s healthiest nations | World Economic Forum

Some statistics about the world’s healthiest nations, according to the World Economic Forum. You will notice that the first time the US is mentioned, is when we are listed as the nation with the most expensive health care.

Imagine if we actually had a “free market”, competitive system where providers of health care services could and would charge anything they wanted because there was no one to stop them? Actually, that is what drives the cost of drugs.

And you will see in the first chart, that many of the nations listed have some form of universal, single payer health care, where everyone is covered, and costs are lower, and have better outcomes.

While no males in every region shown in the second chart has a higher life expectancy, which is understood, since females live longer than males, females in Europe have the longest life expectancy, no doubt due to the better outcomes of their single payer systems.

And finally, in the fourth chart, the US is at the bottom of the bell curve for obesity for both men and women among all the Western nations, and Japan and South Korea. There is a strong correlation between the rankings from Bloomberg in chart 1, and the rates of obesity in chart 4.

So for you skeptics and opponents of single payer, here is the article with some very nice graphics that will help you see the light: 

Spain has cracked the secret to a healthy life, with a Mediterranean diet and publicly funded primary healthcare sending it to the top of the latest global rankings.

Source: These are the world’s healthiest nations | World Economic Forum

How much are you really paying for healthcare? – Managed Care Matters

A little Monday evening catch-up from posts received this morning, but was not able to read and relate to you.

The article below from Joe Paduda examines how much we are really paying for health care, and shows in graphic detail how prices have gone up in health care.

Here is Joe’s article:

Recent posts have focused on defining Medicare for All/Single Payer and the problem both are intended to solve – healthcare prices in the US are the problem. Today, we’ll figure out what you really pay for healthcare. That’s pretty darn … Continue reading How much are you really paying for healthcare?

Source: How much are you really paying for healthcare? – Managed Care Matters

Medical Mystery: Something Happened to the U.S. Health System After 1980 | The Incidental Economist

Good morning all. While perusing my LinkedIn feed, I found this article from May of last year, and thought it would be a perfect addition to the series of articles posted last week about Medicare for All/Single Payer, and why opposition to it is more harmful than the alleged or imagined fear-mongering we are seeing from many quarters.

This is especially significant in light of my post last week, Health Care Is Not a Market, and as the article below suggests, the US health care system diverged exactly at the time of the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the introduction of pro-market forces, supply-side economics.

So it is no coincidence that as Austin Frakt writes, that prices went up, while health outcomes went down, and that socioeconomic status and other social factors exert larger influences on longevity.

Here is the article:

The following originally appeared on The Upshot (copyright 2018, The New York Times Company). Research for this piece was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Source: Medical Mystery: Something Happened to the U.S. Health System After 1980 | The Incidental Economist

Medicare for All Legislation Introduced

Yesterday, as reported by Dr. Adam Gaffney, President of the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and more than 100 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, introduced the Medicare for All Act of 2019.

In keeping with earlier posts on the subject, and to further convince not only the skeptics, but the opponents of Medicare for All, here is what is in the act, according to Dr. Gaffney’s letter:

What’s in the Medicare for All Act?

Coverage

  • Covers all medically necessary care, including hospitalization and doctor visits; dental, vision, and hearing care; mental health services; reproductive care, including abortion; long-term care services and supports; ambulatory services; and prescription drugs.
  • Covers all U.S. residents. Coverage is portable and lifelong.

Choice

  • Provides free choice of doctor or hospital.

Cost

  • Eliminates all patient cost-sharing such as co-pays, premiums, and deductibles.

Budgeting and Efficiency

  • Pays institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes via lump sum global operating budgets to provide covered items and services.
  • Funds capital expenditures such as expansions and renovations with a separate budget.
  • Pays individual providers on a fee-for-service basis that does not include “value-based” payment adjustments. Providers cannot use fees for profit, marketing, or bonuses.
  • Establishes a national drug formulary that promotes the use of generics. HHS will negotiate prices for drugs, supplies, and equipment on an annual basis.
  • Allows the override of drug patents when drug firms demand extortionate prices (a key recommendation from PNHP’s 2018 Pharma Proposal).

Health Equity

  • Provides regional funding for rural and urban areas that are medically underserved.
  • Preserves the benefits provided by the Dept. of Veteran Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
  • Overrides the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding of abortion.

Transition to Medicare for All

  • Implements Medicare for All over a two-year transition period.
  • In the first year, current Medicare enrollees can utilize expanded benefits such as dental and vision care. After year one, the plan automatically enrolls everyone ages 0-18 and 55 and older, and also offers a Medicare Transition buy-in plan through the Federal and State exchanges during this time.
  • Allocates one percent of budget for the first five years to assistance for workers displaced by the elimination of private health insurance.

There are other similar legislation already introduced, especially the one introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, as well as several faux Medicare for All plans that are really Medicare for Some.

Sen. Sanders’ bill calls for a four-year transition period, so the difference is not that important. What is important is that both bills will transform healthcare as we know it and finally get this nation to do what other nations already are doing.

As reported today by Dr. Don McCanne, the legislation was written with the help of a broad swath of lobbyists and special interest groups, if perhaps not the kind associated with typical health policy legislation on Capitol Hill.

Among these groups, as written in The Intercept yesterday by Ryan Grim (not making that up, folks), are the following: nurses, doctors, disability rights activists, and advocates for the elderly, as well as public interest organizations such as Public Citizen and the Center for Popular Democracy.

According to Mr. Grim (don’t laugh, that’s really his name), along with Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the main groups involved in drafting the legislation were National Nurses United, a major nurses union that has long been on the forefront of the fight for single payer; Physicians for a National Health Program; the Center for Popular Democracy, which organizes poor and marginalized communities; Public Citizen; and Social Security Works, which represents more than a million progressive seniors who support expanding the Medicare coverage they have to the rest of the population.

Mr. Grim called these groups “special interests” and said that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries had no part in the drafting of this legislation, to which Dr. McCanne gave an affirmative comment, because they are “when that interest is for the all of the people and their health, but we need to keep out the “usual suspects.

It is sad that some choose to call those organizations who fight for people as “special interests”, yet, have no problem when those interests are insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, large hospital systems, Wall Street, investors, and shareholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Eventually, we will get there. Unfortunately, many of us may not live to see it, or be able to take advantage of it for only a short time before the opposition party repeals it, or we pass on.

Medicare for All – the three versions – Managed Care Matters

Hot on the heels of my post this morning, Health Care Is Not a Market, comes another post from Joe Paduda.

This time he discusses the three versions of Medicare for All that have already been introduced, or soon will be.

However, there is one item that I have with Joe’s version of MFA that I believe is not a viable option – Medicaid for All.

As we have seen in Kentucky, one governor, a Democrat, expanded Medicaid in his state, only to see his successor, a Republican, eliminate it, thereby tossing millions of Kentuckians to lose health care right after getting it,

All it takes is one gubernatorial or legislative election, and millions in that state will lose coverage.

The better option is Medicare for All, since the federal government, and not the states will finance it.

Anyway, here is Joe’s article: 

There is no consensus about what MFA is – and that makes it really easy for supporters and opponents to convince the uninformed it is great or awful. They do that by picking out whatever they think you’ll love/hate – … Continue reading Medicare for All – the three versions

Source: Medicare for All – the three versions – Managed Care Matters