A toxic health care proposal

The Confluence has been a volcano of good writing lately. I commend to your attention, if you have not already seen it, riverdaughter's riposte to Obama's proposed health care plan:

As it turns out, this so-called “gold plated” policy I have through my employer would be non-negotiable. That is, I can’t get a better plan and I would be forbidden from joining the public plan. This is to protect the private insurance industry that has been tinkering with their plans to maximize profits for themselves and not patients. My “gold plated” plan restricts me to a list of pre-approved doctors with which my insurer has negotiated prices for services, otherwise known as “rationing”.

Ok, so here’s where I think the health reform plan is going: you, the hard working individual pulling in a pretty good salary but who is stuck in NJ where everything is expensive and a good salary means diddly squat, are going to be forced to pay a tax for a service for which you can never benefit unless you are no longer employed in the job you’re in. (Bear with me here because this is going to get ugly) Instead, a person who has far less education or gumption or whatever or who is in reduced circumstances through no fault of his or her own, but who is destined to be characterized as the new welfare queen, will be able to get health insurance through the public plan.

This situation is insane. Insane. Obama's health care vision will make Rush Limbaugh's worst stereotypes of the Democratic party seem to come true. This scheme is designed to enrich the insurance industry, yet the right will castigate it -- is castigating it -- as a bold experiment in Bolshevism.

This plan will encourage the transformation of salaried jobs into freelance jobs. I see nothing in this plan to reduce costs. Most Americans see cost reduction as more important than providing universal coverage.

Since both health care costs and taxes will rise, the plan will soon become unpopular. At some point in the 2014-2020 period, a Republican congress will vote Obama's scheme out of existence. For decades afterward, conservatives will crow: "Well, we tried socialized medicine and it didn't work."

The whole point of a public plan (if we must have a public/private mix) is to offer the health insurance industry direct competition. Everyone grumbles about the alleged poor service of the post office, but most people still prefer to pay USPS rates instead of DHL rates when sending a Christmas card. Similarly, everyone now admits that most people would find a public plan more attractive than a private one.

Since the RNC will use red smears against anything the Democrats do, why not go for HR 676, which will provide universal single-payer insurance? Here's a plan that will significantly reduce health care costs:

H.R. 676, also called the United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles. It guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.

The term single-payer describes the kind of financing system that H.R. 676 uses. It means that one entity--in this case, established by the government--handles all billing and payment for health care services. Right now, there are thousands upon thousands of "payers"-- HMOs, PPOs, bill collection agencies, etc. The sheer volume of paperwork required by our current system means that administrative waste accounts for roughly 31% of the money spent on health care. The single-payer system would eliminate the wasteful paperwork and administrative costs, redirecting more of our health care dollars to providing care.

If this sounds good to you, go here to learn how to support HR 676.