Tag: Socialized medicine

  • How conservative leadership put Britain’s national health service on life support

    How conservative leadership put Britain’s national health service on life support

    Britain’s universal health care system, the National Health Service Corps, was for a very long time a model for the rest of the developed world. It offered free coverage for most medically necessary health care services to everyone in the nation. Then there was Brexit, rising costs, conservative leadership that wanted to privatize the national health service, misleadingly claiming that it was unsustainable, and a government resistance to appropriate enough funds to cover costs. It was on life support.

    The New York Times tells the sad story in this opionion video, How Britain Put One of the World’s Best Health Care Systems on Life Support. It is a testament to what a government can do for its people if it chooses to see health care as a human right. It also shows what a government can do to destroy a public good through privatization. In the US, we all know that story.

    The story is not so different from what our government has been doing to weaken the Veterans’ Administration, which had provided outstanding low-cost health care coverage to veterans for decades.

    https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000009190434/nhs-britain-universal-health-care.html

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Socialized medicine v. incremental improvements

    Socialized medicine v. incremental improvements

    For the last several decades, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, the founders of Physicians for a National Health Care Program, have been ardent advocates of a “single-payer” health care system, government-administered improved Medicare for All. They dismissed incremental improvements to hold corporate health insurers in check and stopped short of advocating for socialized medicine. As our health care has moved further away from Medicare for All, in a piece for The Nation they now argue that single-payer is not enough; we need socialized medicine. While that would be wonderful, with health care, slow and steady is more likely to win the race.

    Socialized medicine has always been a laudable and important goal for the US because, for the most part, it takes profit out of health care and puts patients first. The Veterans Administration and Federally Qualified Health Plans are forms of socialized medicine–in which the health care facilities are government-owned and the health care providers work for the government–that are known for their excellent care at lower cost. Members of Congress rely heavily on this type of care through Walter Reed National Medical Center, one of the best hospital centers in the nation. We could and should expand these facilities so everyone has the choice of using them.

    But, socialized medicine is a pipe dream at the moment. If we don’t focus now on curbing corporate power incrementally, it’s hard to see how there is not a total corporate takeover of our healthcare system in the near-term and fewer openings to achieve an equitable health care system down the road.

    For example, Medicaid, which had been administered exclusively by state governments, is now almost exclusively administered by corporations. With Medicare Advantage enrollment growing, Medicare is also increasingly run by corporate health insurers. And, a new government program in traditional Medicare–direct contracting–has opened the door to private equity and corporate insurers overseeing people’s care.

    We need to stop the privatization of Medicare and Medicaid. Since we can’t stop it right now, we need to slow it down. Privatization drives up costs and restricts access to care, with virtually no accountability for bad acts from the corporations. While curbing privatization is not easy, at the moment we cannot expect Congress to enact Medicare for All legislation, much less socialized medicine.

    We can galvanize Americans to speak up against our current system though. Everyone can see and feel how privatization of Medicare and Medicaid is driving up costs, restricting access to care, and hurting large swaths of the population.

    Medicare for All would save over $600 billion in administrative costs. It would generate the funds needed to guarantee good affordable coverage to everyone. It would also give everyone the freedom to choose the doctors and hospitals they want to use, eliminating provider networks. That’s not possible in our current system.

    But, today, doctors and hospitals are largely owned by corporations and private equity firms. These entities have been found to engage in practices that can keep health care providers from delivering the care people need. They put profits first and that can compromise quality of care.

    Himmelstein and Woolhandler argue that Medicare for All cannot achieve guaranteed affordable health care for all if the government is paying corporations and private equity firms to deliver care. Private equity is only about short-term gains for the purpose of sale. Corporations could be in business for the long-term, but profits always come first. Communities should be in charge of people’s health. Here’s how they describe what’s happening to health care in the US:

    “For-profits now own the vast majority of hospices, nursing homes, urgent care and dialysis clinics, imaging facilities, ambulance companies, and home care agencies. They garner nearly one-third of the total revenue of psychiatric and substance-use treatment hospitals, and control a growing share of general hospitals. Meanwhile, insurers are buying up clinics and doctors, eliminating any semblance of clinical independence. Optum—a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest insurer—controls more than 1,500 clinics with 60,000 doctors, and CVS/Aetna already runs 1,200 Minute Clinics, with plans to expand its offerings in primary and behavioral care. Increasingly, Americans’ insurer is also their doctor.

    The rise of corporate ownership of American health care has been stunning. Even more malevolent actors have now entered the fray. Private equity firms’ health care acquisitions totaled about $750 billion over the last decade, more than $119 billion in 2019 alone. KKR and Blackstone now employ or control more than 40,000 doctors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, and provide staffing for about one-third of US emergency rooms. Those companies were largely responsible for the epidemic of surprise bills. And private equity has been gobbling up primary care practices and mental health, orthopedics, and vision care providers; they already employ nearly 10 percent of dermatologists.”

    This is all scary and bodes ill for the future of health care in the US. Still, given our Congress, the immediate fight should be to level the playing field between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage so that people have a meaningful choice between them and we are not overpaying Medicare Advantage plans. Congresswoman Katie Porter, Jan Schakowsky and Rosa Delauro as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren, along with 15 other members of Congress, recently led a letter to CMS arguing for a level playing field. We need scores of members signing on to these letters and driving legislation to strengthen traditional Medicare and end overpayments in Medicare Advantage.

    Traditional Medicare needs an out-of-pocket cap, so that people are not at financial risk if they do not have supplemental coverage. Right now, people in Medicare Advantage who want to switch to traditional Medicare are often locked out of traditional Medicare because, even if they can afford supplemental coverage, which can be costly, insurers in most states do not have to sell it to them.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Strong majority of public continues to support Medicare for all

    Strong majority of public continues to support Medicare for all

    A new Kaiser poll finds that public opinion on health care reform changes depending upon how it is described. Nearly two thirds of the public supports “Medicare for all,” a form of universal health care. Far fewer support other terms, even though they describe Medicare for all.

    Different descriptions for health care reform could have the same or different meanings. “Medicare for all” describes US Senate and House bills which improve Medicare benefits to include hearing, vision, and dental care and long-term services and supports. It also gives people the freedom to use the doctors they want to see anywhere in the US. And, it eliminates premiums, deductibles and coinsurance and ends Medicare Advantage plans, expanding traditional Medicare to everyone.

    The Kaiser poll shows that 63 percent of the public support Medicare for all. The Kaiser poll further shows that over the last two years, Democratic support for Medicare for all has strengthened. Fifty-eight percent of Democrats have a very positive reaction to it as compared to 49 percent two years ago.

    The term “universal health coverage” has as much public support as Medicare for all. This makes sense given that we cannot have Medicare for all unless we have universal health coverage. However, when people speak about universal health coverage, it does not necessarily mean Medicare for all. They could mean expanding commercial insurance to everyone or creating a health care system for everyone that includes both Medicare and commercial insurance. It doesn’t tell you enough about the health care system and whether it will bring down costs and guarantee people access to the care they want and need.

    The terms “single-payer health insurance system” and “socialized medicine” have the least support, 49 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Curiously, support for single payer health insurance should be as high as for Medicare for all, which is single payer health insurance.

    Socialized medicine is a form of universal health coverage, but it is very different from single payer health insurance and Medicare for all. In a socialized medicine system, like the Veterans Administration, the government owns the hospitals and employs the medical providers as well as pays for the care.

    If you support Medicare for all, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care: