Common Objections To Single Payer Health Care In America

1) The government can't run anything. I don't trust the
government.

The current gang in Washington may be a good reason not to
trust
the government to do ANYTHING right.

However, Medicare and Social Security are good examples
of systems
that run well and on time. People receive their checks the
same
time every month and health care is provided: on time.

2) I'm a free market person and don't want any part of
"socialized
medicine."
Single Payer Insurance is defined as a single government
fund with each state
which pays hospitals, physicians and other health care
providers, thus replacing
the current multi-payer system of private insurance
companies.

It would provide coverage for the fifty million people who
are uninsured.

It would eliminate the financial threat and impaired
access to care for tens of
millions who do not have coverage and are unable to afford
the out-of-pocket
expenses because of deficiencies in their insurance plans.

It would return to the patient free choice of health care
provider and hospitals,
not the choice that only the restrictive health plans
allow.

It would relieve businesses of the administrative hassle
and expense of maintaining
a health benefits program.

It would remove from the health care equation the
middleman—the managed care
industry—that has broken the traditional doctor-patient
relationship, while diverting
outrageous amounts of patient care dollars to their own
coffers.

It would control health care inflation through
constructive mechanisms of cost
containment that improve allocation of our health care
resources, rather than
controlling costs through an impersonal business ethic
that robs patients of care
so as to increase profits for the privileged few. Single
Payer Universal Health
Care would provide access to high quality care for
everyone at affordable prices.

3) Canadians have long waiting periods and come to the
U.S. for their health care
needs. Therefore, such a plan would make for waiting
periods in the U.S.

First of all, ask almost any Canadian if they would trade
our system for theirs.
The answer is a resounding "NO."

They may have to wait for elective surgeries, for
instance, but
we have to wait for these kinds of surgeries, as well.

Canadians have the option to buy extra coverage to get
heroic measures covered,
say in the case of Cancer treatment.

At 9% of their GDP, they are spending much less than we
are as a nation.
We, the wealthiest nation on earth, spend 14 % of our GDP.

4) Our country cannot afford to insure everyone.

Our country already has enough funds dedicated to health
care to provide the
highest quality of care for everyone. Studies have shown
that under a single
payer system, comprehensive care can be provided for
everyone without
spending any more funds than are now being spent.

Not only do we have more than sufficient funds, we are
also a nation that is infamous
for our excess health care capacity. Typical of these
excesses is the fact that there
are more MRI scanners in Orange County, CA than in all of
Canada.

With our generous funding and the tremendous capacity of
our health care delivery
system, the delays would not be a significant limiting
factor in the U.S.

5) Americans do not want "Socialized Medicine."

Socialized medicine is a system in which the government
owns the facilities,
and the providers of care are government employees.

In sharp contrast, a single payer system uses the existing
private and public
sector health care delivery systems, preserving private
ownership and employment.
The unique feature of a single payer system is that all
health care risks
are placed in a universal risk pool, covering everyone.
The pool is funded in
a fair and equitable manner so that everyone pays their
fair share in taxes,
unlike our current defective system in which some pay far
too much while others
are not paying their share. The funds are allocated
through a publicly
administered program resulting in optimum use of our
health care dollars.

A single payer system has no more in common with
socialized medicine than our
current Medicare program.

Socialism is a dirty word in this country. Universal
health care for all has
been equated with socialism, and much propaganda has been
communicated by the
press, by right wing politicians, by medical groups such
as the AMA or anyone
else who has an agenda to keep the 1500 plus health
insurance companies a
thriving market with profits that undoubtedly help to pay
for their agendas.

6) A Universal Single-Payer would lower the standard of
care to a level of
mediocrity for everyone, preventing the affluent from
exercising his or her
option to obtain the highest level of care.

Our current system is characterized by essentially two
alternatives:
either no insurance with severely impaired access to even
a mediocre level of care,
or being insured by a managed care industry that has
whittled down what is
available until mediocrity has become the standard of
care. Only the relatively
affluent have access to unlimited care.

The generous level of funds that we have already dedicated
to health care,
adding to this a more efficient administration with an
exclusive mission of
optimum patient care well above the mediocrity that we now
have, lays the foundation
for a universal health care system in America.

A single payer system does not preclude the affluent from
paying, outside the
system, for a penthouse suite in the hospital, or for
cosmetic surgery or for
any other service that would not be part of a publicly
funded program.

But if Americans knew the truth, and would turn off their
TVs and use that time
instead to change this country, using the power of
grassroots politics, to make
a single payer universal system a reality for all, then we
would finally have
the best health care system in the world.

Any group with the passion to change the world, one issue
at a time, with a
loving intent, can do it.

Kate Loving Shenk
Nursing Career Transformation