Progress Now Action

When Democrat Mark Udall debated Republican Bob Schaffer in July, he made no effort to refute Schaffer’s distortions surrounding health care reform. In fact, he essentially short-circuited meaningful debate by adopting the nebulous right-wing description of single-payer health care as “government health care,” thus capitulating to Republican framing of the issue.

Just what is government health care? Is it the more than 60 percent of all health care costs that are paid by taxpayers, including subsidies for inflated costs of private insurances? Private insurers skim the cream and game the system for profit, and count on government (taxpayers) to pick up the health care costs of all whose coverage they reject. Does government health care include the 70 percent of our legislators’ health coverage that is funded by taxpayers?

Democrats who facilely echo GOP talking points grossly misrepresent single-payer health care. In fact, contrary to assertions by the right-wing “free market” chorus, only single-risk-pool insurance provides true free choice of private providers, the same as traditional Medicare before Republicans moved to privatize Medicare (at 12 percent higher cost). Private insurance plans limit choice to “in plan” doctors, often requiring change of providers when plans are changed. Only single payer is capable of providing comprehensive, continuous health care benefits and protection against medical bankruptcy.

Our leaders should vigorously protest the abomination of Medicare prescription drug reform that was written by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and inflated profits to benefit their bottom lines, while prohibiting negotiation of bulk drug prices.

Instead of privatizing Medicare-for-profit, why not improve and expand its coverage for everyone? Traditional Medicare has lower overhead costs – less than 4 percent – whereas private insurances divert 25 percent or more to profits, lobbying, marketing, exhorbitant CEO salaries and wasteful administrative costs. Profit is a perverse incentive for health insurance, which protects its bottom line by reducing benefits and shifting ever-greater costs to consumers.

The insulated political class in Washington, dependent upon corporate money and privy to 70 percent taxpayer-subsidized health coverage, seem out of touch with the U.S. people. Polls by Pew and others have revealed that increasing numbers – 54 to 65 percent – support a national single-payer health care plan. A recent study reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine (3-31-08) that 59 percent of U.S. physicians “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” an increase of 10 percent since 2002.

Notably, more than 20 federal and state studies since 1990, including the 2007 Lewin Group evaluation in Colorado, have demonstrated that single-payer health insurance is the only reform model that can both save money and provide comprehensive health care benefits for all. The Colorado single-payer proposal and Rep. John Conyers’ national health care bill, HR 676, both deserve serious further study.

We have everything to gain from an honest dialogue about quality-, saftey-centered universal single payer health care, in place of profiteering health insurance gatekeepers.