Facebook logoTwitter logoYouTube logo

Winning Medicare for All? “I Like Our Chances”

Despite insights, Time magazine’s cover story falls short on remedy

By James Kahn for Common Dreams

In his recent Time magazine article, Steven Brill paints a vivid and rather depressing picture of the perverse malfunctioning of our health care system – overpriced and technology-addicted – and he acknowledges some of the advantages of Medicare.

Sadly, however, he shies away from an endorsement of the obvious solution: an improved Medicare for all, i.e. single-payer national health insurance.

I’ll come back to that a little later. However, let me first say that Brill masterfully illuminates much of what’s wrong with U.S. health care.

Take, for example, the “chargemaster” list: an archival, bizarrely hyper-inflated price list in each hospital based on some long-lost secret formulas and automatically inflated over time.

As a physician and health policy researcher, I’ve long known about the massive charges offered to non-contract payers (read: individuals not covered by a public or private insurer), charges that are completely meaningless for costing studies because they’re almost never paid in full and don’t represent the real resources used to provide care. However, what Brill lays out brilliantly (pun intended) is the following:

  • Some very poor (lower-middle income) people actually do pay the sky-high chargemaster rates.
  • There is a cottage industry (growing, I’m sure, if nothing else due to this article) to help those hapless souls negotiate steep discounts on these ridiculous bills.
  • Hospital administrators either refuse to discuss the chargemaster list or offer up the most heinous, transparently nonsensical justifications for using it.
  • Perhaps worst of all, the CEOs of large not-for-profit providers are paid literally millions of dollars (OK, not tens of millions like big for-profit companies, but still …), thereby introducing into a supposedly public-good-oriented setting the compensation (and marketing) tone of for-profit industry.
  • When these not-for-profits list their “charity” care they value it at the price levels in the chargemaster, even though the cost to produce those services is less than 10 percent of the chargemaster price.

In these and other instances, Brill performs an outstanding public service. However, he regrettably stops short (or his editors stopped him short) of explaining why a single-payer health care system is the only effective remedy for the mess we find ourselves in today. This despite the fact that much of what he says would lead you directly to that conclusion.

He goes so far as to quote others, including John Gunn, Sloan-Kettering’s chief operating officer, who says, “If you could figure out a way to pay doctors better and separately fund research … adequately, I could see where a single-payer approach would be the most logical solution. … It would certainly be a lot more efficient than hospitals like ours having hundreds of people sitting around filling out dozens of different kinds of bills for dozens of insurance companies.”

Yet Brill characterizes single payer, the most logical solution, as “unrealistic” and fraught with the danger of government overreach and intrusion, summarily dismissing it. Need we mention insurance-company overreach and intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship? Need we note the freedom of Medicare beneficiaries to choose their own doctor and hospital, something that would also characterize a single-payer system?

Incidentally, Brill sharply undervalues the government role in paying for health care. He says that the federal government pays $800 billion per year out of our $2.8 trillion health bill, with the remainder mainly picked up by private insurers and individuals.

The $800 billion federal spending on Medicare and the federal portion of Medicaid is right. However, when you add in other federal programs, the state portion of Medicaid, other state and local programs, health insurance for government employees, and tax subsidies, the total government contribution is over 60 percent of total health spending, and rising. Our government already spends enough to pay for universal single payer!

Single-payer health reform is clearly the answer. We need to create the meme and the momentum and the aura of inevitability to do the right thing — despite the opposition of individuals and organizations with massive vested financial interests in the private health industry. They can be overcome.

Think Lincoln and the 13th amendment. As he said (or at least Daniel Day-Lewis said in the movie), regarding prospects of passing the amendment out of Congress, despite doom-saying by his advisers — “I like our chances” (slight smile).

I like our chances on single payer because it’s now so obvious how irremediably broken our system is, and the house of cards will eventually fall. It’s all about perseverance and timing.

James G. Kahn, M.D., M.P.H., is a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, Global Health Services, and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, all at the University of California, San Francisco. He is also past president of the California chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Comments

6 Responses to “Winning Medicare for All? “I Like Our Chances””
  1. The estimate that 60% of the National Health Care Bill due to Government striking. Have you got a link to a breakdown of that you could give us? Also, wouldn’t the $1.68 Trillion paid for by Government still have to supplemented by about $220 Billion to pay for something like HR 676, enhanced Medicare for All? I’m assuming here that after HR 676 we’d be able to cut total costs to about 12% of GDP, about what Canada spends, but no less than that.

    The other $220B would be no trouble to pay for; if the Government were willing to use the method advocated here: http://amzn.to/Z7kG5q

  2. Alan E Singer says:

    I have lived 8 yrs in US, 28 in UK and 25 in NZ. The US health insurance system is a tragedy. In NZ and UK no-one worries about getting needed treatment. If you’re busted you will be fixed, discharged when ready, to get on with enjoying life or making $. No paperwork, no problem. If an individual wants a super-luxury health service in NZ or UK, when he has the ability to pay, he can still buy private insurance for service from private “providers” and its cheap. People overseas see that Americans are unwilling to take some responsibility for their own sick fellow citizens and that it’s every individual for themselves. They see health CEOs walk away with millions each year, whilst working people get billed 450K (Time article) What a disgrace.
    According to the most credible sources, Medicare for all, which is basically what NZ and Uk have, would save a ton of money and help the US economy. People would be freed from a constant worry and burden. Those who oppose Medicare -for- all are harming 100s of millions of people, economically and with respect to their quality of life.

  3. ter badger says:

    If we had single payer or (Medicare for all), then we would not need Medicaid. So the states and government would have that money to go towards the Medicare budget.

  4. L. O'Connell says:

    Yes, too many commentaries – including the CNN “Escape Fire” documentary of March 10 & 16 (8pm & 11pm) – shy away from espousing “Medicare for All”. President Obama brought many to tears with his campaign story about his mother having to deal with insurance companies while dying from cancer – yet he allowed Max Baucus and Liz Fowler to write The (costly & complicated) ACA that protects the health insurance industry.

    We who want “Medicare For All” need to find every legal method available to defeat the powerful special interests. For starters, we need to find ways to get Healthcare-NOW Director Ben Day on every talk show on MSNBC (Maddow, Hayes, Klein, Sharpton, Matthews, Schultz, Harris-Perry, etc), CNN’s Dr. Gupta, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc.

    I’d like to see the phrase “Medicare For All” featured as or more prominently than the phrase “Single-payer” since many might find the latter confusing / unimpactful. For example, I’d like to see Healthcare-NOW’s website banner revised to state “Organizing for National Single-payer MEDICARE for ALL (HR676)” with a prominent box under it with the words “sign our petition”.

    Perhaps Healthcare-NOW needs to sponsor a national essay contest with a $1,000 first prize with the subject “Explain the value that companies such as United Health Care contribute to U.S. health care.”. Having been born and raised in NJ, I liken health insurance to the “protection money” strong-armed from businesses by the mafia. Can we characterize these high-paid Wall Street and K Street darlings as members of organized crime – – – and perhaps even prosecute them under the RICO Act?

    I’d also like to see Healthcare-NOW create an e-letter for all of us to send to Mayor Bloomberg (c/o Bloomberg Philanthropies?) reminding this good-hearted liberal who made a fortune on Wall Street that, while obesity from such sources as soda does account for huge health bills, approximately 1/3 of our health care costs could be eliminated with the enactment of HR676 and the banning of private health insurance policies while providing job re-training assistance to all those displaced by same. Mayor Bloomberg needs to help Healthcare-NOW get HR676 Medicare For All in the national dialogue.

  5. vacation says:

    Link exchange is nothing else except it is just placing the
    other person’s blog link on your page at appropriate place and other person will also do similar in favor of you.

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. […] magnanimous folks see in Brill’s stating an infrequently unfinished box for price controls or a single-payer system or […]