disrupter
03-14-2009, 03:35 PM
Single-payer health insurance better for most
13 Mar 09
Much is being said about health-care reform in the news lately (e.g., "Health-care reform needs to address primary care," Feb. 25), but
everyone [ELITE] shies away from the subject of a single-payer (nationalized) plan.
People seem to worry about the government dictating what kind of health care we can and can't have, and when we can have it. But for most of us, the insurance companies are dictating these decisions now, because we can't afford what they won't cover. And the bottom line for insurance companies is profit, not health.
We don't elect insurance CEOs; they're not accountable to us, as the government ultimately is.
Thirty-one percent of what Americans spend on health care is actually spent on administration, including all the people at the hospital who submit our claims, and the people at the insurance company that process them.
A single-payer, taxpayer-supported system like Medicare only spends 17 percent on administration. That's a lot more bang for the buck.
Our unique American system of employer-provided health insurance makes it nearly impossible for companies in the U.S. to compete with foreign companies whose employees are insured by the state. It also means that the loss of a job means the loss of coverage. Is this any way to provide health care?
I encourage anyone with questions about single-payer health care to look up the answers on www.pnhp.org, the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Plan.
Claire Prontnicki
Watervillehttp://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/6027130.html
You should probably listen to some PAID political pundit or Corporate clone instead of a fellow American.
13 Mar 09
Much is being said about health-care reform in the news lately (e.g., "Health-care reform needs to address primary care," Feb. 25), but
everyone [ELITE] shies away from the subject of a single-payer (nationalized) plan.
People seem to worry about the government dictating what kind of health care we can and can't have, and when we can have it. But for most of us, the insurance companies are dictating these decisions now, because we can't afford what they won't cover. And the bottom line for insurance companies is profit, not health.
We don't elect insurance CEOs; they're not accountable to us, as the government ultimately is.
Thirty-one percent of what Americans spend on health care is actually spent on administration, including all the people at the hospital who submit our claims, and the people at the insurance company that process them.
A single-payer, taxpayer-supported system like Medicare only spends 17 percent on administration. That's a lot more bang for the buck.
Our unique American system of employer-provided health insurance makes it nearly impossible for companies in the U.S. to compete with foreign companies whose employees are insured by the state. It also means that the loss of a job means the loss of coverage. Is this any way to provide health care?
I encourage anyone with questions about single-payer health care to look up the answers on www.pnhp.org, the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Plan.
Claire Prontnicki
Watervillehttp://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/letters/6027130.html
You should probably listen to some PAID political pundit or Corporate clone instead of a fellow American.