What Should Be the Goal of Health Care Reform?

by: Monica Sanchez  |  The Campaign For America's Future

What Should Be the Goal of Health Care Reform?
Due to widespread underinsurance, even people who have health care coverage may not be able to afford a doctor visit when they need one. (Photo: Daily Press)

    In his New York Times op-ed [1], "The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage," Ramesh Ponnuru argues that the goal of health care reform should not be universal coverage. On that point, we agree. The goal of health care reform should be to guarantee everyone in the United States has access to quality, affordable health care.

    But that is where our agreement stops because what Ponnuru proposes would not achieve that goal.

    People need health care insurance for the same reason they need fire and auto insurance. To protect them from bankruptcy should they be faced with a disaster, be it a fire, an accident or an illness. If they or someone in their family is among the 5 percent of the population that uses up 50 percent of all health care dollars [2], they need insurance to cover those high costs.

    And everyone needs to be covered for the same reason. Those of us who are lucky enough to not have fires, accidents or serious illnesses help cover the costs of those who do in exchange for the security of knowing that we will be covered if the need ever arises. That is the very basis of insurance and it is why universal coverage is a vital first step towards guaranteeing everyone has access to quality, affordable health care when they need it.

    Or as Winston Churchill put it [3] we have "a real opportunity for bringing the magic of averages to the rescue of millions."

    Having health insurance is important to our health as well as our bank accounts. The Urban Institute estimates [4] that 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance.

    But it is only the first step. Simply giving people health insurance coverage does not guarantee them access to quality, affordable health care. That is clear from the millions of people who are already insured and still cannot afford the health care they need.

    A report [5] by the Commonwealth Fund found there are 25 million underinsured adults in the U.S. Underinsured: that means those of us who have insurance but can't count on it for financial protection. It's a frightening number--but still a huge underestimate.

    Who did the study count? People who said they spent 10 percent or more of their income (or 5 percent if they had very low incomes) on health care--even with their insurance--or who had deductibles at 5 percent of their income. Not counted? Lots of people who haven't been hit with hefty health care bills yet. That's why you may be underinsured and not even know it.

    Even by the Commonwealth Fund's undercount, the number of underinsured adults is up by 60 percent from 2003. That's because health insurance is covering less and less. A Harvard study [6] found that 75 percent of people who had filed for bankruptcy because of medical debt had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.

    To guarantee everyone has access to quality, affordable health care when they need requires system-wide reform that will lower the cost of health care and slow its ridiculously high inflation rate [7]. That cannot be accomplished through Ponnuru's suggestions.

    Simply aiming to "make health insurance more affordable and portable" does nothing to keep health care costs from continuing to skyrocket, thus continuing to make insurance more and more expensive over time. Massachusetts reform [8] has proven that.

    In today's world, affordable insurance too often equals Swiss-cheese coverage [9]. We don't need that kind of 'affordable' insurance [10]--we need to be able to afford the health care we need when we need it.

    The way to lower overall health care costs, stem their inflation rate and guarantee everyone access to quality, affordable health care is to give everyone the choice of a public health insurance option. Making people with good employer-sponsored insurance pay taxes on that benefit does nothing to further that goal.

    As Jacob Hacker, Professor of Political Science, U.C. Berkeley and Co-Director, Center for Health, Economic & Family Security put it in his report "The Case for Public Plan Choice in National Health Reform: Key To Cost Control and Quality Coverage [11]," (PDF):

    "Without public plan choice, on the other hand, we will continue to lack strong institutional mechanisms to rein in costs and drive value down the road, putting the broader goals of reform and our nation's public and private budgets at risk. Although expanding insurance and upgrading inadequate coverage will require substantial up-front investments, any viable proposal for affordable quality health care for all must be able to contain long-run health costs. Ensuring that mechanisms for effective cost restraint are embodied in national health reform is essential--and a key argument for public-private competition." [Emphasis added]

    Visit this page to learn more about a public health insurance option. And then stand with President Obama and Dr. Howard Dean to demand the choice of public health insurance. Sign the petition today [13]!

    Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09ponnuru.html
[2] http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm
[3] http://books.google.com/books?id=qcgCafO1iAUC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=bring the magic of averages to the rescue of millions churchill&source=bl&ots=27r8KnzmJD&sig=JGu1XexZVFT7RfprOHQLiwOronU&hl=en&ei=pRbeSc7jMIPflQezyoFK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
[4] http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html
[5] http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=688615
[6] http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1
[7] http://www.przoom.com/news/19249/
[8] http://www.ourfuture.org/files/MA_Health_Reform_Final.pdf
[9] http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/99889-hb-1243-would-ok-limited-hmo-coverage
[10] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201817_pf.html
[11] http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf
[12] http://www.ourfuture.org/healthcare/public-health-insurance
[13] http://StandWithDrDean.com/

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



When are people going to

When are people going to learn that affordable health care is not and never will be adequate for the national health care needs. Nor is health care reform by any stretch the same as health insurance reform, which is what 'affordable' health care really is. Affordable health care will not meet the needs of citizens, because it is not health care. It is simply reforming the process of insurance coverage, by mandating that all Americans buy health insurance. The insurance companies will continue to be the gatekeepers to our health needs and health care access. Want to know why the cost of health care keeps going up? Look to the big pharmaceuticals and to the for profit health insurance companies. Forty years ago, most health insurance was delivered by non-profit health care organizations, and prices were not unreasonable. Then the for profits moved into the neighborhood and prices began climbing, never to end. Do we need more of the same? No. We do not need affordable health care with a public option, we need single payer health care for all Americans. Enough is enough. tell Obama to cut away from 'affordable' health insurance to real health care.


as a former health care

as a former health care worker who couldn't afford the bed he stood beside, health is necessary to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. it is an essential right! i also took care of my own mother for 13 yrs. right up to the moment she died at home as she wished.


State insurance coops would

State insurance coops would have the possibility of competing well with private by requiring on-line records, evidence-based protocols, and access to on-line resources such as Cochrane and Kaiser research on prevention and outcomes. By integrating low-cost, low-side-effect options, such as acupuncture and exercise for arthritis, long-term costs could be less than for those who just want to pop NSAID's. Offering choice is better than mandating no choice. As I write this, I am bearing in mind that some disabled people are electro-shocked against their own wishes and that of their relatives and friends, at taxpayer expense. Ray Sandford, of Minnesota, is scheduled to be forcibly shocked tomorrow, on tax day, such a sad irony our country tortures our own. This used to be not much known off our shores, but Ray's case has international attention.


This article is well

This article is well researched, well presented, and gives a good insight into the cupidity of the health insurance industry. It becomes apparent that the main stream media, even the progressive voices evenings on MSNBC, are not going to give the public any information regarding the bills for single payer health care which have been introduced into the house and senate by Rep Conyers, Rep. McDermott, and Sen. Sanders. It would seem that the MSM does not want to anger their primary advertisers. One only needs to look at TV and it seems that every other ad is from a pharmaceutical company; thus, two observations (1) Drug prices are twice as high in the USA as in any Western nation, and we are one of two countries in the world that permit TV advertising of pharmaceuticals (the drug industry spends much more on advertising than they do on research) (2)What is the point? No honest, competant physician prerscribes by looking at TV ads., I have covered these issues at lengthy per a series of articles on The Rag Blog.


I see more smokescreening by

I see more smokescreening by the indecently profitable Health Insurance Industry here. Let's cut to the chase. Three elements necessary for a successful national health care system are: 1) everyone must join and pay, with those that cannot pay subsidized by government, 2) No one is refused, and 3) the system is non-profit. These three elements are contained in the plans of all nations that have a successful system. Here, we call it "Single Payer," and the insurance companies are lobbying very heavily against it, already winning over corrupt politicians. Will Obama prove to also be in their pockets?