Cost of universal health care less than bailouts

Joe Byrne, writing at The Raw Story, tells the story:

A study by the Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy indicates that "The transformation of America's current health care system into a single-payer 'Medicare for all' sysem could cost six times less than the bank bailouts."

Most people in this country, minus the disgruntled and the insane (such as Rushbo), are aware that our health care system is in dire straits. Compared to the health care provided by other nations for their citizens, we're way down the list. France, is number one!

Mr. Byrne notes that according to ABC, "the US spends twice as much on health care than the average developed nation, most of which work with universal health care. Critics of the current system point to the government treating health care as if it was a commodity, not a social service; because of the demands of the market, insurance companies have a motivation to avoid unprofitable patients."

And, I might add, unprofitable doctors. It isn't unusual for a retired person to go through HMO's as fast as Bush went through reasons to invade Iraq. If a doctor is conscientious, operates from a preventative point of view, he/she is likely to get bounced by an HMO because he/she, by seeing patients more often and ordering important tests to check for problems, is going to cost the HMO money. So, the retired person, if he/she wants to keep the same doctor, has to seek out a new HMO.

According to Mr. Bryne, Obama's plan "will cost $634 billion out of the new overall budget. In addition, $175 billion that was to be payment to private insurers for the coverage of 10 million Medicare patients will be re-allocated over the next ten years for health care reform."

Today, President Obama is meeting with newly-appointed Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebellius and other honchos to hash over the problem and look at ways to reform our system so it works for all Americans, not just members of Congress and the rich people. This gathering being called "a nonpartisan health care summit at the White House."

Good luck with that. I think the president and his administration will again have to go it alone, again, because all the Repugnicans can offer to any discussion on meeting the needs of our people is "No, no, no, no!"


Here's how this could work:

"Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private." According to an analysis of the proposal for a single-payer universal health care system by the Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy, it was found that "'full medicare benefits for all' would have these immediate effects:

* $317 billion in increased business and public revenues throughout the US economy.

* 2,613,495 new permanent jobs, at an average of $38,262 per year.

* $100 billion in additional employee compensation.

* $44 billion in increased tax revenue."


But there's more. It would appear that a lot of folks would be saved from debilitating or fatal illnesses; and millions more would be spared from unnecessary pain as well as financial catastrophe.

The question before the nation is whether or not it is worth the cost of the bank bailouts to provide universal health coverage; to actually put together a system that benefits the poor and middle-class.

Or, to put it another way, the financial price tag of the war in Iraq is headed toward the $1.3 trillion mark. Is universal health care for the American people worth half of that?