Fiscal prudence is needed in our health-care solution
Column by Sam Rasoul
Principles of decency, fairness and respect lead me to support reform of health-care insurance in the United States. Acknowledging that 18,000 people die every year because of lack of access to health care and acknowledging that extremely ill people often must battle their insurance companies make turning our backs on the problems of our current system impossible and unconscionable.
Almost everyone agrees we need a universal plan, but most plans discussed now that require everyone to purchase insurance, often-stripped-down plans from for-profit insurance companies, will produce more waste and more inefficiency. My fiscal-conservative principles revolt against such plans.
The waste is undeniable. Under our current for-profit system, about one-third of every health-care dollar goes for something other than our health care.
Private-insurance companies take the first 15 to 25 percent. They take it for profits and overhead. Private insurance is indeed profitable, nearly $10 billion in 2006 for the top seven insurers, and those companies pay their chief-executive officers hefty salaries to keep those profits high. In 2005, United Health Group’s CEO was the third highest-paid CEO in the country, enough to cover health-care costs for 34,000 people.
In addition to the CEO, they employ thousands of people. Hiring employees doesn’t sound wasteful until we look at a comparison. In Massachusetts, which recently adopted a plan mandating everyone purchase insurance, Blue Cross has more employees for its 2.5 million customers than Canada, under a single-payer system, has for its 30 million citizens. Private insurance needs legions of workers to deny us our benefits or to reject us a customer.
The companies even buy computer software to help in that effort, software that can help dig through past claims or look for reasons to deny payment. Sales of such software grew to $7.5 billion last year, money that didn’t go to our health care.
Of course, the companies use our premium dollars for advertising and lobbying also in order to increase and protect their business.
If we take the profit out of health-care insurance, we obviously decrease the waste. Medicare, which is a single-payer system, has an overhead of 3 to 4 percent as compared to the 15 to 25 percent for private insurance. A single-payer system eliminates exorbitant CEO salaries, an overstaffed bureaucracy, advertising, lobbying, and, need I say, profit.
The waste doesn’t stop with the skimming off the companies do. The health-insurance industry causes a nightmare for hospitals and physicians, a nightmare that costs another 12 percent of our insurance premiums. To deal with the paperwork, they have to hire more clerical workers than nurses. The physicians end up in disputes with the insurance companies, causing them time and more money. Single-payer eliminates that absurdity because providers will send their claims to one place to get paid, the National Health Insurance Program, instead of thousands of different companies.
As a fiscal conservative, I say we must end the waste. House Resolution 676, or Improved Medicare for All, calls for a single-payer system that will provide us a choice of providers with no premiums and no deductibles and more coverage than a majority of us have now. Such a system could put decision-making back into the hands of doctors and patients instead of private insurance bureaucrats while, at the same time, eliminating the waste.
Sam Rasoul is a candidate for the Sixth District Democratic Party congressional nomination.
Related posts:
- Bolling lays out health-care plan Story by Chris Graham You don’t hear a lot of Republicans talking about health-care reform. “And I don’t know why that is, because one of...
- My universe for health care Stop the Presses column by Chris Graham It’s hard to be funny about health care. Especially when my own access to it is nonexistent. Yep...
- U.S. business, big and small, hurting because of our current health-insurance system Column by Sam Rasoul The practice of work-related health insurance began as a way for employers to get around the wage controls of the Second...
- Brennan challenging in 59th, advocates universal health care Story by Chris Graham All politics is local – but to Connie Brennan, it is also true that all Virginia politics emanates out of Richmond....
- ‘Sicko’ blasts U.S. health-care system Carly at the Movies column by Carl Larsen Michael Moore is kind of like George W. Bush. You’re either for him, or you’re against him....



















Interestingly, I’m listening to The People’s Pharmacy on NPR while reading this article by Sam Rasoul.
They are interviewing Jonathan Cohn, the author of “Sick” who is discussing exactly the same problem. I think that people running for office should be clear about their ideas for solving the health insurance problem in this country — so good for Sam!
In the last two days, I’ve learned that the phrase “socialized medicine”, which is used by many of the Republican presidential candidates to denigrate a universal healthcare solution, is a meaningless phrase, but yet another effective negative buzz word. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Do some research and some real thinking about the problem.
Sam How do you feel about H.R.676