Mayors join those lined up behind national health care
Northern Colorado Business Report
By Steve Porter
July 18, 2008 –
• Managed care systems like HMOs and other so-called market reforms have failed to contain health-care costs, a situation that now threatens the international competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers;
• Administrative costs of private insurers consume one-third of private health-care spending while Medicare has administrative costs of less than 5 percent;
• U.S. hospitals spend 24.3 percent of their budgets on billing and administration while hospitals in Canada - which has a single-payer system - spend only 12.9 percent;
• Harvard researchers estimate that more than $300 billion could be saved annually by replacing private insurance companies with a single public-payer system;The United States remains the only advanced nation in the world without universal health coverage while premiums for workers who get their health insurance through their employer - the vast majority - continue to rise by 10 percent, 12 percent or more every year.And at the same time, private insurance companies continue to reap record profits. In 2006, the nation’s six biggest health insurers earned almost $11 billion in profits, according to ConsumerReports.org.It’s a situation that can’t continue much longer, universal health-care advocates say. And it’s a system that business can’t carry much longer, according to Nathan Wilkes, a co-founder of the Business Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare.
“Basically, everybody in the group - we all have different backgrounds in business and political leanings - but we all recognize the current health-care system is crushing business and it’s making us not competitive globally,” said Wilkes, an Englewood resident who helped form the group in 2007.
Wilkes said his group helped formulate the message sent to the mayors that changing to a single-payer system would benefit them through cost savings to their respective cities by no longer dealing with multiple insurance companies, each taking their own profits, and by buying drugs and medical supplies in bulk.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that part out,” Wilkes said.
HR676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 70 other representatives, would basically expand the Medicare program - an existing single-payer plan now restricted to those 65 and over - to include every citizen. The bill has been endorsed by numerous medical organizations, including the National Medical Association and the American Nurses Association.
Others lining up behind it include several faith-based organizations, the Kentucky and New Hampshire houses of representatives, 20 cities and counties, the League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO organizations in 33 states and more than 400 labor groups across America, including the Boulder Area Labor Council and the Southern Colorado Labor Council in Pueblo.
Opposed by industry
So with all these groups coming together behind HR676, what’s keeping it from being enacted?
Wilkes says any real change in the current system is strongly opposed by the private insurance industry, big pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical devices. “Anybody that’s making big profits today is against it,” he said.
Last year, Colorado tried to take a step toward insuring all of its residents - about 800,000 aren’t insured - through the 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform. Five proposals were forwarded to the Legislature in January, including a proposal from Health Care for All Colorado that would have provided coverage for all through a single-payer plan.
Eliza Carney, chair of the Northern Colorado chapter’s steering committee, said she was “disappointed but not surprised” by the legislature’s failure to adopt any of the proposals.
Carney said financial constraints were part of the inaction but also a lack of political will.
“I think some of the (Democratic) legislative leaders were swayed by pundits who said it was a controversial issue and they would be hammered by the Republicans at election time,” she said.
Both Carney and Wilkes strongly support HR676 but say getting momentum behind a national health-care plan probably won’t happen without successful state-level programs. Both said they would like to see Colorado develop a pilot program that could serve as a possible prototype for a national health care program.
“It’s not going to happen without a lot of grassroots action,” Carney said.
Asked whether a change in the White House this year might increase HR676’s chances of passing in Congress, Wilkes said he holds out hope under a Barack Obama presidency.
“I’m always hopeful,” he said. “It’s definitely getting better for something like that to happen. I would love to see a situation where Barack Obama is president with a filibuster-proof Congress to finally pass a universal health-care plan.
“That would be phenomenal.”
October 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
We have talked with people who have lived in other countries where universal health was in place and they appreciated how well it worked. We think it is a good idea. We still have some questions, like how will it impact the hospitals and their income?
We think that healthcare shouldn’t be helping insurance companies get richer. The middle man should be taken out. That way healthcare would no longer be dictated by money. Healthcare would be based on our community. Healthcare is a basic human need and should not be considered a privilege.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
There is no one more appropriate to speak out on health care than nurses. We are so well aware of the lack of equality in healthcare for Coloradoans and Americans. Uninsured citizens delay accessing care because of the cost and once they do access the system their illnesses are often catastrophic (and costly). Unfortunately the cost of preventative care, or wellness care, is seldom ever included in insurance coverage. As a nurse who works in the acute care setting, I can attest that there is no differentiation in care people based on ability to pay. However, healthcare costs continue to escalate in attempt to pay for the high cost of technology.
Looking at a single payer health care system would provide an avenue of equality for all. It would provide access for all, not just when they are seriously ill, not only when the cost of a catastrophic hospital admission would be cost prohibitive.
Additionally, coverage for preventive care needs to be a mandatory part of our health care system. The cost to prevent illnesses or to treat them in their early stages is much more affordable and can limit un-need hospital admissions. Nurses are ideal to work in the preventive health settings thereby increasing access to care. They assess and intervene appropriately and follow up by evaluating health care outcomes. Coverage for preventive health care programs, utilizing nurses, will positively impact health care in Colorado and America by decreasing private health care spending.
October 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
We like the idea of a universal health care system because it will eliminate the middleman and make health care more affordable for everyone. We are wondering where the money for a universal health care system will come from. Is it going to raise taxes, and if so, how much? Also, how will it affect hospital’s income?
With the current economic status, there is no wonder that people are going without health care because if the exorbitant costs or lack of affordable insurance. With a universal health care system people will have a chance to get the health care that they need and should be able to access. At what point will the health status of people and quality of life become more important than the almighty dollar??