If you're an avid news watcher who pays close attention to mainstream media coverage of health-care issues in the political arena, you probably haven't seen much mention of the "single payer" option.
Also known as "Medicare for all," single payer would mean publicly funded, privately delivered health care for everyone. The government would foot the bill, treating health care as a human right. What a concept!
Evidently, that's too heavy a concept to be in general media circulation. Despite the logic of guaranteeing health care for everyone — or maybe because the idea is so logical — a tacit retaining wall seems to be in place against in-depth media discourse about that option.
I've been reading a book titled "Health Care Meltdown," written by two doctors, Robert H. LeBow and C. Rocky White. It's tough medicine against the shibboleths and other assorted myths that are so implicit and popular in the U.S. news media.
"At some point, we Americans will have to wake up," the books says. "Perhaps our attachment to the mantra of 'personal responsibility' and 'the market' is so strong that we would actually support a solution under which some people can get PET scans, others leeches. Or maybe it's okay with us if low-income folks get a 10-dollar 991-minute phone card to talk to Dial-a-Nurse in Bangalore while wealthier Americans buy 'concierge care' and have their own private physicians."
The book goes on: "Hopefully, that kind of approach, or the reliance on bake-sale financing, will not be the 'uniquely American' solution we choose. But while we're in health care 'limbo,' variations on the status quo will see us head in that very direction. And, meanwhile, the vested interests will continue to reap their profits since they hold the advantage in a game of 'Survivor.'"
Of course we've seen quite a bit of media coverage in recent years that notes the absence of health insurance for many Americans.
Politicians and pundits are bandying about all kinds of nostrums for providing medical insurance. Some go so far as to urge that everyone be assured of insurance coverage — with government mandating and, if need be, underwriting the payment of premiums.
Such scenarios generally appeal to the insurance industry, which wouldn't mind if taxpayers bolster their profits. That might be a suitable price for American society to pay to make sure that everyone can get health care when it is needed. But profits go up for insurance companies when they do a better job of denying or limiting access to health care — and that hardly argues for keeping the insurance industry at the center of the nation's health-care system.
The distinction between "health insurance" and "health care" is well worth making. Unfortunately, few news accounts explore the big difference.
A theoretical guarantee of insurance coverage for everyone would beg two key questions:
Given the complexities of umpteen different insurance plans, varied enrollment procedures and skyrocketing premiums, why should we believe that government subsidies for insurance could actually provide everyone with the health care they need?
And, even in the highly unlikely event that everyone got insurance coverage, why should we make the leap to assume that such a guarantee would actually result in health care for all?
The questions need to be asked so the underlying issues can be debated. Until journalists are willing to probe in such directions, the nation's health-care crisis is very likely to keep getting worse.
Norman Solomon's latest book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For details, go to: www.normansolomon.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
|
Get RSS Feed for Norman Solomon
|
Email me Norman Solomon updates
|
Comments
|
| Editors Picks - Opinion Columns | ||
| Sarah Palin Is Not the Future of the GOP Roland S. Martin |
Interesting Times Are Here Again R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. |
New (Old) Products for Hard Times Lenore Skenazy |
| See All | ||