The Student News Site of Stony Brook University

The Statesman

45° Stony Brook, NY
The Student News Site of Stony Brook University

The Statesman

The Student News Site of Stony Brook University

The Statesman

Newsletter

Medicare For All

It goes without saying that in history the most moral solution to a problem has not always been the most politically popular. Even more seldom, it seems, has morality coincided with economic convenience. Yet in the case of the health care crisis, a single-payer or ‘Medicare For All’ system in which the government replaces private insurers while leaving patients with their choice of doctors meets all three criteria: not only is it the only morally acceptable solution, but it enjoys overwhelming support among the general population and would also give a significant boost to the US economy. Just causes that do not meet the criteria of popularity and economic pragmatism are no less urgent or legitimate, but when they do, as in this case, there is even less excuse for opposing them.

First, the moral dimension. According to data collected by the CDC and analyzed in the upcoming December 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, around 45,000 people die each year in this country because they have no health insurance. The 46 million uninsured people in this country have a 40 percent higher risk of death than the insured, as many reputable studies have demonstrated. For many of those who are insured the picture is often only slightly less grim, with insurance companies charging astronomical premiums and regularly denying coverage for necessary medications and procedures. An August 2009 study published in the American Journal of Medicine found that at least 62 percent of all bankruptcies in this country result from medical bills.

An industrialized society that fails to provide its people with adequate health care is profoundly sick in a moral as well as physical sense. The ONLY way to fulfill the moral imperative of universal health coverage, as all other industrialized nations do, is through a single-payer, Medicare-For-All system.

Public opinion is likewise unambiguous. Though often dismissed by Democrats as ‘politically impossible,’ Medicare For All has long had the support of the US public. In dozens of major opinion polls in recent decades, between 55 and 65 percent of respondents have consistently expressed support for a system of national, universal health care (for a partial list of polls check out the website of the Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Health Care).

Finally, Medicare for All would bring enormous economic benefits. While administrative overhead consumes about 12 percent of private insurance costs and 31 percent of total health care spending, Medicare’s overhead costs are less than 4 percent. As the organization Physicians for a National Health Program reports, ‘the US could save enough money on administrative costs (more than $350 billion annually) with a single-payer system to cover all of the uninsured.’ According to a recent study by the National Nurses Organizing Committee and California Nurses Association, expanding Medicare to cover the whole population would create over 2.6 million new jobs and would increase public and business revenues by $317 billion, providing a huge stimulus to the economy. This economic stimulus will be many times greater if single payer is implemented within the context of a more general budgetary shift away from military spending and toward social programs, education, and public infrastructure. As economists inside and outside of government have demonstrated, these types of spending are far more effective in creating jobs and stimulating an economy than is military spending.

A 1992 study by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that local and state governments are twice as efficient as military spending at creating jobs. Economists Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier echo this basic conclusion in a March 2008 Nation article, finding that ‘[e]very $1 billion spent on a combination of education, healthcare, energy conservation and infrastructure investments creates between 50 and 100 percent more jobs than the same money going to Iraq’ and other military expenditures.

As in the case of single payer itself, there is broad public support for this shift. Polls have found that ordinary people identifying as both Democrats and Republicans-as opposed to their elected leaders-overwhelmingly favor sharp reductions in the bloated Pentagon budget; in an October 2006 PIPA poll, for example, Democratic respondents said they would cut military spending by 48 percent, Republican respondents by 20 percent. The only interests that would be hurt by a shift to Medicare For All are the insurance companies, and, to a lesser extent, the pharmaceuticals and private health care providers that would be forced to cut down on overhead and abide a reduction in their often-astronomical profit levels. Yet these interests have shaped the debate thus far.

One of their major accomplishments has been keeping the single-payer solution out of view and limiting the debate to whether or not a ‘public option’ will be included in the reform bill. Obama’s public option proposal, though still ambiguous and ill-defined, would fall short on all three counts: the moral, the political, and the economic. It would, as Obama himself has admitted, fail to cover everyone. It would force most of the uninsured to purchase expensive health insurance plans from private companies, effectively channeling even more of the public’s money into corporate hands. And by leaving the insurance companies intact, it would do little to reduce the enormous economic waste and astronomical prices of the current system. A bill with a robust public option might represent a tangible improvement, but that improvement would pale in comparison with the myriad benefits of single payer.

For a more detailed discussion of the health care crisis and the benefits of Medicare For All, readers are invited to attend a talk by Professor Martha Livingston on Tuesday, October 13th at 7:30 p.m. in Old Chem 118. Dr. Livingston sits on the Executive Board of the NYC chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.PNHP.org). The event is free and is sponsored by the Social Justice Alliance with additional funding from the Graduate Student Organization.

Extensive citations of the sources referenced in this article are available on request at [email protected].

Leave a Comment
Donate to The Statesman

Your donation will support the student journalists of Stony Brook University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The Statesman

Comments (0)

All The Statesman Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *