State Rep. Michael Dembrow wants to
establish in Oregon what the White House and Congress couldn’t do in last
year’s healthcare reform effort: single-payer health care.
And a
bunch of like-minded folks are coming to Portland to pitch the same idea—at the
Oregon Single Payer
Conference this Saturday, Jan.
29, at First Unitarian Church.
For
those needing a refresher, single-payer would create universal health care,
funded from a single insurance pool. It’s a “monopsony” (buzzword for your next
cocktail party), meaning that several money streams—like progressive income
tax, corporate tax and state funds—would all go into one pot that covers
everybody’s healthcare costs in Oregon.
“In a
nutshell, it’s Medicare for everyone,” says Dembrow.
Dembrow
and his fellow Portland Democrat, state Sen. Chip Shields, face an uphill
battle in the Legislature, which is focused on dealing with a $3.5 billion
budget hole. Even if the bill to establish single-payer in Oregon succeeds, it
will have to jump through a second hoop in 2014 and win a three-fifths
legislative vote to get funded—because that’s the year reform advocates hope
states can begin experimenting with health care.
“It’s
going to be tricky,” admits Dembrow.
Among
the bigwig national healthcare speakers lending support for single-payer at the
Jan. 29 conference is Dr. Margaret Flowers, the congressional fellow of
Physicians for a National Health Program. She lists four benefits for
single-payer.
The
average Oregonian would pay less in premiums and deductibles out of
pocket—despite an increase in taxes to fund single-payer—because it would lower
administrative costs and distribute overall costs more widely, Flowers says.
Secondly, she says, young people would have better career prospects because
people in their 50s wouldn’t feel obligated to stay with jobs just to keep
their health benefits.
The
average primary care physician would spend $60,000 less per year dealing with
insurance companies, she estimates. And a fourth benefit she lists is that
small businesses would be revitalized because they wouldn’t be carrying the
weight of employees’ healthcare costs.
The
keynote speaker will be 23-term U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a
single-payer advocate who gets healthcare advice from activist Joel Segal.
“There’s
a perfect storm brewing for single-payer,” says Segal. “Unemployment is high,
states are cutting their Medicaid programs, employers are dropping health
coverage, and union people are getting angry. The government will either cut
more programs, or people will demand change.
“Single-payer
health care is going to take a movement where people say, ‘We’re not going to
take this anymore,’” says Segal. “Viva la revolution.”
It's amazing how tone deaf and ignorant some people are. Government-run health care would be a worse disaster in America then it has been in Canada and Britain. State spending, taxes and the "deficit" would all skyrocket. Worst. Idea. Ever.
Even if it were "worse" than "in Canada and Britain" it would be a huge improvement over what we have now. Both those nations spend far less on health care than the US, and achieve better results. In those countries people are not bankrupted by an illness or injury.
The Canadian system was good enough for Sarah Palin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000152-503544.html
John Fairplay and Wayne Brady: I ask you to read the many studies at the website of Physicians for National Health Program to see how misinformed you are about how there are no disasters of "government-run health care in Canada and Britain." Single payer has not failed "every time it has been tired." No other industrialized country has people losing their homes when if they become seriously ill like 70,000 people per year in US.
The deficit of our country would be reduced and all citizens world receive preventive and basic medical services for LESS than the US us paying now for over 50 million people to have no heath care.
Please educate yourself before you make statements like you made here.
Over 80% of the Canadians are in favor of their healthcare system and the physicians in England are against the recent efforts to privitize their system. These facts help build my belief that a single payer system for Oregon has merit and should be pursued with vigor.
Wow, maybe you should update your information on single payer health, the Canadian system, aside from the propoganda you have listened to and believed is serving Canada very well.
Canadians have a relaxed sense of security that uptight Americans do not. Go into depth on your research, it does take time to gather real information and facts but it is well worth it.
Ms Devlin, Thank you for your thoughts. It may not be 80%, but a 2003 Gallup poll showed only 17% of Canadians are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare in their country, compared to 44% of Americans who are very dissatisfied.
I'd also like to point you to a paper which outlines the use of US healthcare services by Canadians (a popular myth--the numbers are very skimpy when compared to the converse): http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full
The man who brought a national single payer system to Canada, Tommy Douglas (who is coincidentally Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather), is now regarded as a national hero and was voted in a 2004 CBC poll as the Greatest Canadian (above Alexander Graham Bell and Wayne Gretzky).
Yours,
Richard Bruno, medical student
This has failed every time it has been tried. When will the leftists learn?
Actually, Vermont might be the first to get a single payer system in their state. Twenty other states have a bill coming up. California has passed it twice (vetoed both times).
We're seeing people become more educated to the atrocities of the system, and start to support a single payer system that addresses the underlying need to provide everyone with care and make strides toward preventing the 558 uninsured Oregonians dying every year.
Richard Bruno, medical student
Preventative care does not save money. That is a myth. Medicare and Medicaid are failed systems. They only survive because of the subsidy provided by those who are not in Medicare and Medicaid.
Which would be more attracted to Oregon as a result of passage of Single Payer HealthCare, new businesses/employers? or unemployed, unhealthy folk?
Portland's reputation - as "a place young people move to retire" - is well served by such ideas as Dembrow's here.
Medicare and Medicaid are good examples of what happens with a single payer system. The patient choices are limited, the reimbursements are far too low,, and fraud is high.
What we need is more competition and no mandates. This would lower cost and more people would decide to purchase health insurance.
We also need to have people purchase their own insurance and not get prepaid medical from their employer. That would promote more rational decisions regarding medical coverage. It makes no sense to have insurance pay for low price routine treatment.
I would like to know where you get the statistic of 558 unisured who die every year. As far as I know, nobody is refused medical services because of lack of insurance.
Mr Brady,
Many people are dying due to lack of access to primary care, relying on emergency room services for exacerbated conditions. Please see the 2009 Harvard study calculating 44,000 uninsured Americans dying every year: http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
With breakdown by state: http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/excess-deaths-state-by-state.pdf
Medicare and Medicaid are not examples of a single payer system. These are chronically underfunded programs, and need improvement. We have seen that more competition has further fragmented our system into thousands of insurance plans for which individuals do not get much of a choice for plans, providers, or hospitals. All that would change under a single payer plan, while relieving the burden of premiums and deductibles.
I agree with you that we should remove employer-based healthcare. Single payer would do that and aid small businesses, making Oregon attractive to outside businesses.
Thanks for bringing up these points. I hope that civil dialogue like this will allow us consider options for a healthier Oregon.
The U.S. healthcare system ranks 37th compared with other industrialized nations. The U.S. healthcare system doer rank among the best in the world for people aged 65 and older. Improved Medicare for all will make sense and cents.
The U.S. healthcare system ranks very low when compared with other industrialized nations. However, the U.S. healthcare system ranks among the best in the world for people over the age of 65. Improved medicare for all is what we need to push for. Get active people and get involved.
The United States has a low ranking because of the way the ranking is done.
Infant mortality is scored differently in the United States than in other countries. We count an infant death any time after delivery. In other countries, early infant deaths are not even counted. They simply don't count it as a birth.
If you look at our survival rates for cancer and other maladies, they are much higher than found in other countries. Life expectancy is not a good measure because there are life style differences that influence life expectance and the quality of medical care cannot offset.
Mr Brady,
Please see the World Health Organization report (page 28) that describes the metrics used to calculate infant mortality: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
It is the same in each country. The US ranks 29th in the world. You are correct--we do have good survival rates, but the obesity and diabetes epidemics plaguing our great nation can be directly related to lifestyle habits. Primary care is instrumental, as estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that 80% of diabetes, heart disease, and stroke could be eliminated through reductions in smoking and obesity.
Finally, I'd like to contend your notion that Medicare is bankrupting our nation, and I'd like to posit that it is the for-profit health insurance industry which is bloating the system with administrative costs, denying people access to the care they need, and contributing to over 60% of the personal bankruptcies in our country.
This is not a fun conversation, but I do appreciate your input. I want to practice in an equitable system that allows me to provide the utmost care of my patients without interference by health insurance company bottom lines.
Richard Bruno, medical student