Why Did a Major Healthcare Organization Approve Single-Fee Healthcare
More and more doctors are backing plans for the government to provide health insurance to many or all Americans. The American College of Physicians has just released a position paper endorsing the Single Payer and Public Choice policies, explaining why it believes such policies will ensure that “everyone has coverage and access to the care they need at a price that they and the country can afford it. “
Even the American Medical Association, which has long opposed such policies – it campaigned against Medicare itself in the 1960s – almost changed its stance last year. (The AMA publicly supports the Affordable Care Act and requires changes to improve coverage.)
Almost everyone agrees that our current health care system is broken and that medical care is out of reach for the many people who need it. The ACP writes that it “believes that universal coverage is needed.” The AMA does not use the word universal, but writes that it has long advocated health insurance for all Americans. The only question is how to achieve this and which system has the least disadvantages.
Here are some of the reasons the American College of Physicians believes that a single payer or government option system is best for solving the problems of our healthcare system:
We need to reach more people
It is clear that our current system, in which people or their employers have to buy insurance, does not lead to universal coverage, much less affordability. ACP is quoted by the World Health Organization as saying :
Due to unfavorable selection [sicker people are more likely to participate in insurance] and exclusion of the poor, no country in the world has come close to [universal health] using voluntary insurance as its primary funding mechanism.
ACP writes that we need a system that “provides universal coverage with significant benefits and lower administrative costs.” Private insurance clearly cannot do this.
Coverage shouldn’t depend on where you work or how healthy you are.
ACP writes that “coverage should not be dependent on a person’s place of residence, job, health or income.”
Nowadays, many of us lose our insurance when we leave our jobs. We can buy insurance coverage on the open market, but the cost depends on income, which helps, but we all know people who are unemployed or freelance and choose to go without insurance because of the cost.
ACP argues that coverage should be available to everyone, even undocumented immigrants, because yes. (Also because public health is important to the whole of society, and hiding it from some people is ultimately bad for everyone.) The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that children are entitled to education in public schools regardless of immigration status; The ACP believes similar logic should apply here.
Everyone should have access to health care
Another paragraph in the ACP position paper: “Insurance must provide adequate access to doctors, hospitals and other sources of care.” If you need help offline, or if you can’t afford the co-pay, or if the waiting time or other obstacles are excessive, then this system isn’t doing the job. Some countries with universal health coverage are grappling with these challenges, but they often do better than we do.
Reach and access are goals, not policies, and there is plenty of room for healthy debate about how to achieve them. The ACP position paper is a good read if you want to ponder the advantages and disadvantages of different systems; nothing is perfect, and the ACP cautions against some of the problems it sees with single payer and public option proposals. This is why they decided to support these approaches anyway:
The ACP concludes that of the approaches currently available, which have been carefully modeled and researched, the single payer or public choice model offers the best opportunity to realize our vision of universal coverage at a cost that the patient and country can afford, while recognizing that each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The ACP acknowledges concerns about giving the government too much control over health care, but notes that the current system gives insurers, many of whom operate as for-profit companies or are for-profit companies, too much control, while the government already plays a significant role in regulation and financing. healthcare.