HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) proposes a single payer health coverage. In a testament to the overall good health (or overwhelming fear) of Americans, many don't want to rock the boat and would rather continue supporting the health insurance and health care provider industries.
However, even loyalists, those who benefited from old-time insurance policies that made their health care affordable and those who have never had a serious medical event, must be realistic enough to note the trend...consumers are being encouraged to specialize their needs, to leave their asthmatic neighbor, their smoking peer, their mentally ill teen behind while they grab onto cheaper rates. And really, what is inherently wrong with that? Life isn't fair, right?
The "crisis" in health care is that there are emerging results, unanticipated shifts in policy and consequences that have reduced the possibility for each individual to use health insurance for its sole value as a financial product, for covering the risk of the need for and therefore buying the ability to afford needed medical care. The difficulty lies in the fact that systems aren't static, insurance companies and health care providers desire more money, technology offers new ways for people to know more about their bodies, and when consumer ability to pay increased share of costs that continue to rise even after they've paid single or multiple premiums for the right to assistance in paying for health care, such care becomes more unaffordable.
HR 676 will not be perfect if passed. What it is good for is a shift in attitude to manage some of the unanticipated results of a health care system that is outdated.
There are many reasons that the health insurance product is no longer effective as a means of paying for needed medical care. First and foremost is greed. Greed on the part of health care providers and of health insurance product companies.
There is nothing wrong with trying to make the best living you can, it is the trickery that is used in persuading individuals that it's for their benefit that is frustrating and enraging. Recently the AMA started pushing for health care coverage for all by showing sick children and old people who needed medical care. This kind of advertising caters to the worst among advertisers. If health care for the sick and ailing was the issue, the AMA would be supporting the expansion of health services, clinics that will not turn away people for financial reasons. But the issue is payment...health insurance means payment to physicians and they are not about to give up that guarantee of income. Unfortunately, health insurers have also dug in their heels and they don't want to pay as much as physicians are charging. Consumers are left paying for the bigger and bigger discrepancy between amount charged and amount contributed by insurance company. As individuals supporting the entire health care industry whether we contribute to a single payer program or continue to buy more and more expensive policies for less coverage and additional out of pocket costs, we must clarify our goals.
Consumer goals are simple: access to the best care, when we need it, for a price that will not bankrupt us. Everything else is optional. So why the hostility towards a single payer system? Well, look at the corruption within Medicare/Medicaid, look at big government, it will be just another tax. You know what...maybe. But is what we're doing now working? Did you really think that the free market economy would be able to make individual consumers more powerful than organized blocs of physicians and insurance companies trying to legislate their incomes and entitlements? As these groups organize and create more alliances than ever before to promote and influence government to support their agendas, consumers have been persuaded that "going it alone" will be beneficial. This is not the case.
Oh, don't take my word for it. Just think. You are a healthy person with no bad habits or chronic ailments, you have the BEST insurance ever, fewer exclusions and lower costs than your less healthy contemporaries. Now ask our stakeholder question: Does this give you access to the best care, when we need it for a price that will not bankrupt? In the early days of insurance company greed the answer was maybe because policies would give you a shot at being health and after you became less healthy you were up a creek, but now? Probably not. So what you've done is bought basic health care coverage at a cheaper price ASSUMING you will remain healthy.
Instead of balking at "big government", we need to stop being stupid. Why do you think that health care and insurance stakeholders pay huge amounts of money to lobbyists to present their views to "big government?" Because they're smart. We need a government that supports a health care policy that gets us access to the best care, when we need it for a price we can afford. If any proposal does not move us closer to this goal, it does not pass the stink test...period.
