The US is 37th in the world in terms of best health care systems. And yet the free market approach to health care is still the dominant topic of debate. This is despite recent studies that show overwhelming support for a single-payer, government funded system by both consumers and physicians alike.
In 2003 Barack Obama, then a member of Chicago's state legislature, clearly voiced his support for a single-payer system as the most efficient, cost effective and effective way to ensure all Americans and cut costs. Yet despite this clear opinion in his speech, since taking office Obama has clearly changed his views, giving in to lobbyists and political pressure. He now refuses to consider a single-payer system as a viable alternative to the current system.
It is disturbing to see how the clear and respectable views of the candidate for whom the country voted have been corrupted by the pressure of lobbyists and campaign contributors.
It is clear from data conserning the health care systems of other countries, specifically the 36 countries who outrank the US in terms of quality systems, that a single-payer or similar governmnet funded system is the best possible way to cover all Americans and to lower the costs of health care.
It is absurd to believe that allowing the market, which is run by the greed of those who participate in it, to control something as crucial as health care is a good idea. Look what would have happened to social security if it had been privatized: it would have gone down with the stock market.
And the opponents of a single-payer system, who cite the need for choice that the current system apparently allows, need to stop lying. In fact, the current system restricts choice and keeps people from going to certain doctors due to how the current system is constructed. I know from personal experience. Because of the network system that is currently used, I may only go to a doctor within my network. What kind of CHOICE is that? It is the opposite of choice. Contrastingly, a single-payer system would allow every person to go to ANY doctor anywhere in the country without having to worry about networks or whether or not their visit will be covered.
Opponents also love to say that the government would be making choices for patients. This is a complete lie. The government's only role in a single-payer system is funding. The choices are left up to patients and doctors: more than in the current system.
The problem is simple- the insurance companies. These companies are the main illness of healthcare in the United States. They are out for profit and nothing else. Instead we must have a system whose goal is to benefit the people. That is what a single-payer system would do and that is what the US needs.
In 2003 Barack Obama, then a member of Chicago's state legislature, clearly voiced his support for a single-payer system as the most efficient, cost effective and effective way to ensure all Americans and cut costs. Yet despite this clear opinion in his speech, since taking office Obama has clearly changed his views, giving in to lobbyists and political pressure. He now refuses to consider a single-payer system as a viable alternative to the current system.
It is disturbing to see how the clear and respectable views of the candidate for whom the country voted have been corrupted by the pressure of lobbyists and campaign contributors.
It is clear from data conserning the health care systems of other countries, specifically the 36 countries who outrank the US in terms of quality systems, that a single-payer or similar governmnet funded system is the best possible way to cover all Americans and to lower the costs of health care.
It is absurd to believe that allowing the market, which is run by the greed of those who participate in it, to control something as crucial as health care is a good idea. Look what would have happened to social security if it had been privatized: it would have gone down with the stock market.
And the opponents of a single-payer system, who cite the need for choice that the current system apparently allows, need to stop lying. In fact, the current system restricts choice and keeps people from going to certain doctors due to how the current system is constructed. I know from personal experience. Because of the network system that is currently used, I may only go to a doctor within my network. What kind of CHOICE is that? It is the opposite of choice. Contrastingly, a single-payer system would allow every person to go to ANY doctor anywhere in the country without having to worry about networks or whether or not their visit will be covered.
Opponents also love to say that the government would be making choices for patients. This is a complete lie. The government's only role in a single-payer system is funding. The choices are left up to patients and doctors: more than in the current system.
The problem is simple- the insurance companies. These companies are the main illness of healthcare in the United States. They are out for profit and nothing else. Instead we must have a system whose goal is to benefit the people. That is what a single-payer system would do and that is what the US needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment