Spring Break
Column: Laying the Foundations for a Single-Payer Solution
Simona Li
Issue date: 1/8/08 Section: Opinion
In a December 15 issue of the New York Times, the co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program blasted the Democratic presidential candidates for shying away from a single-payer healthcare solution. Instead, the authors claimed, the candidates are going back to the progress-stifling plans of Nixon and those adopted by several individual states that have shown little concrete progress, and even regression in some instances.
However, it is likely that the current candidates do see the benefits of a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer plan would not mean government-run hospitals and socialized medicine, but rather socialized insurance. The government would pay the hospitals and doctors, who would remain private. This system saves money by decreasing exorbitant administrative costs (31 cents/dollar now, and only 4 cents/dollar under the new plan) by universalizing documentation decreasing prescription costs.
So why haven't any candidates mentioned this in their campaign except Kucinich (and look where he ended up)? Most candidates probably realize the advantages of a single-payer system, but know that there is too much inertia in the US to implement such a radical change without mass protest. What they have done instead is endorse a viable transition plan for the country. Like building a house, the first step is to level the ground to lay a foundation for future construction. Mandating that everyone have insurance now will guarantee that future plans can focus on tackling the insurance companies and not whether Americans will actually be affected by the change.
One of the main critiques from the article's authors is that mandating healthcare is not an effective transition plan because of evidence from failed state plans. States like Massachusetts, Tennessee and Vermont saw little to no decrease in the number of uninsured after implementing their respective healthcare mandates. However, a focus on numbers may obscure actual decreases in the overall percentage of residents affected because of comparisons of figures between years as far apart as 1988 and 2007, making it quite possible that the increase in uninsured people only reflected normal population increases.
However, it is likely that the current candidates do see the benefits of a single-payer healthcare system. A single-payer plan would not mean government-run hospitals and socialized medicine, but rather socialized insurance. The government would pay the hospitals and doctors, who would remain private. This system saves money by decreasing exorbitant administrative costs (31 cents/dollar now, and only 4 cents/dollar under the new plan) by universalizing documentation decreasing prescription costs.
So why haven't any candidates mentioned this in their campaign except Kucinich (and look where he ended up)? Most candidates probably realize the advantages of a single-payer system, but know that there is too much inertia in the US to implement such a radical change without mass protest. What they have done instead is endorse a viable transition plan for the country. Like building a house, the first step is to level the ground to lay a foundation for future construction. Mandating that everyone have insurance now will guarantee that future plans can focus on tackling the insurance companies and not whether Americans will actually be affected by the change.
One of the main critiques from the article's authors is that mandating healthcare is not an effective transition plan because of evidence from failed state plans. States like Massachusetts, Tennessee and Vermont saw little to no decrease in the number of uninsured after implementing their respective healthcare mandates. However, a focus on numbers may obscure actual decreases in the overall percentage of residents affected because of comparisons of figures between years as far apart as 1988 and 2007, making it quite possible that the increase in uninsured people only reflected normal population increases.
Be the first to comment on this story