Yesterday, California State Senator Mark Leno was on Stand UP! with Pete Dominick (Sirius 110 “POTUS”) educating people about SB 840 and what a “single-payer” health insurance system is all about. For a country as large as the US, and states as large as California, this is definitely a more efficient approach to the “universal” healthcare ideal than creating a new healthcare system completely owned and operated by the government.
Leno explained that the single-payer health insurance system replaces many different health insurance providers with a single government insurance provider. This preserves the ability for individuals to choose their private care providers based on location, reputation, cost, or any other factors important in making that very personal decision. In short, single-payer health insurance is a compromise solution with the “universal” healthcare ideal at its heart.
Leno did not indicate how the government would determine how much coverage one would receive, or whether it would establish rewards or limitations for individuals that choose certain doctors or practices. Also, after the bankruptcy after only a few months for a “universal” children’s healthcare plan in Hawaii, I’d like to see how a single-payer system will keep itself from going bankrupt while keeping its promises of “universal” access to the citizens of California.
I was tempted to call in to the show when Leno insisted that the single-payer health insurance is “not socialized medicine.” I wanted to ask exactly how “socialized health insurance” was going to be any less likely than private insurers to deny claims and limit payouts? Perhaps it is because rather than deciding who gets insured and who gets paid for claims based on a business decision, it becomes a political decision instead.
Citizens of California would get coverage for what the California legislature thought should be covered. Keep Democrats in office for more family planning coverage? Keep Republicans in office to extend Veteran benefits? See where this is going?
Should political entities be allowed to make these decisions? Without competition in the health insurance market, how is the government to be trusted to stick to a budget, hire a competent staff, operate efficiently, and be willing to say “no” instead of trying to please everyone?
It sounds more to me that Leno and other political entities simply want a sideways solution to help perpetuate the claim that healthcare can be “universal.” I am sure there are perfectly valid reasons, backed by the heart-wrenching stories of kids sick or dying because they supposedly don’t have adequate health coverage. However, the bottom line here is that while we have a right to “life,” we do not have a right to receive health care or health insurance whether or not we can afford it. It is a hard, cruel truth to swallow when we watch individuals suffer from various illnesses… but there’s no such thing as “free” healthcare.
So what’s the “solution” to the supposed “healthcare problem” if not a government solution? Well, what the “universal healthcare” advocates aren’t telling you may hold the key:
1. The reason we need health insurance is because healthcare itself is expensive.
2. The reason healthcare is expensive is because the government is already too involved in the system (both providers and pharmaceutical entities) with its many laws, restrictions, regulations, license costs/requirements, taxes, fees, and malpractice lawsuit allowances.
If we have any public health issues for true contagious epidemics, on the scale of malaria in some African countries, then perhaps there is a role for government to step in to provide temporary aid. However, when it comes down to the health of the individual, and the degree to which that individual seeks and receives treatment is the responsibility of the individual and those investing in the health of that individual (family, employer, etc.).
There is no evidence that the problems created primarily by federal and state government interference can be solved by further interference. However, as a final word, I will say that if a state is going to experiment in the area of socialized medicine, I would prefer they look at the single-payer insurance route than creating an entire state healthcare system.
I would be interested in hearing your comments and intelligent debate about single-payer health insurance… please feel free to post a reply.
