Published: December 15, 2007 04:15 am    
Local guest commentary: Private insurance has failed us
By Laura McClure

Earth to the presidential candidates: 64 percent of Americans want a "national health-insurance program for all Americans," according to a CNN poll from May. Why don't you?

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and the other Democratic and Republican candidates, except for Democrat Dennis Kucinich, have proposed health-care reforms that fall far short of what most Americans want and need.

The Democrats' plans revolve around requiring individuals to pay for health insurance (with skimpy government incentives), requiring employers to cover their employees, or both.

The Republicans' plans provide even slimmer incentives for people to get coverage.

All these plans are fatally flawed: They would leave intact""in fact, would prop up with additional taxpayer dollars "" the world's most expensive and inefficient health-insurance system. As a result, they're far too complex and far too costly.

Why can't these candidates step up to the plate to propose the only proven solution to our health-care ills: national health insurance?

The Democratic candidates appear to be too timid to do what most of them probably know needs to be done""or perhaps too dependent on insurance company campaign contributions. (In contrast, Al Gore, now freed from these constraints, recently stated his support for national health insurance.)

The Republican candidates say they are ideologically opposed to national insurance, arguing that having publicly funded universal insurance is "socialism," and therefore bad. Under that logic, we should privatize our roads and police departments.

Fortunately, we won't, because most of us can see that some functions are better done by government. We've given private health insurance 60 years to work, and it's proven itself to be inferior to public systems all around the globe. (That is, more expensive with poorer health outcomes.) And yes, government can do it efficiently. Medicare's administrative costs are between 2 percent and 5 percent, compared to a bloated 17 percent for private health insurance.

Republicans and Democrats who like the idea of fiscal responsibility should take a serious look at national health insurance. The evidence is clear that providing high-quality national health insurance for all Americans would be less expensive than trying to cover them through the patchwork plans offered by the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Why? Because they're proposing to give billions of our tax dollars to wasteful private health insurance companies instead of creating an efficient, streamlined system. (No wonder the health insurance industry is cheering them on!) The U.S. already spends nearly twice as much on health care as any other country.

The single biggest reason: private health-insurance profit-taking and bureaucracy add up to 31 percent of the cost of health care in this country, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. No other country comes close. The money we'd save by making the government the national insurer would be more than enough to cover all the uninsured.

Under the proposed U.S. National Health Insurance Act (HR 676), employers would no longer purchase insurance for their employees (which would greatly level the playing field for employers). Employees would no longer pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Instead, all employers and all workers would pay a 3.3 percent payroll tax. A family of four earning $40,000 a year would pay $110 a month for full family coverage, with no deductibles or premiums.

Currently, the average family with employer-sponsored insurance pays $273 per month out of pocket, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Those who don't have employer-provided insurance must shell out an average of $489 per month for their families in premiums.

A national insurance system would be cheaper, and it would work better. Forget "job lock," where you can't leave your job because you can't afford to lose the health insurance. You'll be covered wherever you go. And forget wondering how you'll cover out-of-pocket expenses for necessary medical procedures. There won't be any.

What's more, you'll finally be able to go to the doctor or clinic of your choice, public or private. You'll no longer be limited to insurance companies' "in plan" doctors.

The national health-insurance plan we create won't be the same as Canada's or France's or anyone else's. If we want it to be richer and more comprehensive, we can make it that way. But can't we all agree not to throw our money away on private insurance industry waste?

Under our current system, rural areas like ours can't attract enough doctors and other healthcare professionals. Dr. Laura Chalfin, who practiced medicine in Delhi for 15 years, practices in a rural part of Canada, which has national health insurance. She points out Canada's public system can better address such problems.

Canada provides rural doctors with incentive pay. And her provincial government allocated more money for training family doctors so that there would be a larger supply of people to work in underserved areas. These are the kinds of reforms that would be almost impossible under our system, which is ruled by the interests of private insurance companies.

With our leaders fearful and bumbling, the people will have to lead on this issue "" and hope that the leaders will follow.

___

McClure is a freelance writer and editor living in Bovina Center. She is a member of the Healthcare Work Group of the Coalition for Democracy, an advocacy group with members in Chenango, Delaware and Otsego counties.