The Health Care America Wants
To the Editor:
David Brooks (“The New Social Contract,” column, Sept. 7) dismisses a single-payer health insurance system on the grounds that Americans “will not likely embrace a system that forces them to defer to the central government when it comes to making fundamental health care choices.”
Yet the federal government’s Medicare program has strong political support.
In 2003, even a conservative Republican president and Congress found it politically advantageous to expand Medicare significantly by adding prescription drug benefits.
Extending Medicare to cover all Americans would strengthen America’s economy in three ways.
It would reduce administrative expenses, replace costly emergency room visits for those now lacking insurance with more cost-effective preventive care, and improve the global competitiveness of American manufacturers, who now bear much higher health care costs than do their foreign rivals.
Gregory M. Saltzman
Ann Arbor, Mich., Sept. 7, 2007
The writer is a professor of economics and management at Albion College.
To the Editor:
According to David Brooks, single-payer health care is a bust, since Americans are too individualistic to embrace “a system that forces them to defer to the central government.”
But most Americans are now forced either to defer to the profit-seeking H.M.O. their employer chooses, or to switch jobs (which is certainly not as easy as switching brands of toothpaste) and be beholden to the H.M.O. one’s new employer has chosen.
Many other Americans are not lucky enough to be offered health insurance at work at all, and are forced to use the emergency room as their site of primary care. Hence, I doubt whether Americans, if there were a truly informative national discussion on the issue, would take the bogus threat of single-payer serfdom seriously, especially if the single-payer system is pitched as “Medicare for all.”
Craig Duncan
Ithaca, N.Y., Sept. 7, 2007
To the Editor:
David Brooks does not recognize that a single payer system based upon expanding Medicare, a proven system, to universal coverage does not mean “free” health care and would not place a burden on future generations.
Of course, premiums would be paid, perhaps adjusted for income.
The difference would be that the not-for-profit single payer system would be dedicated solely to using premiums for paying for medical treatment rather than a cash cow used to maximize profit through investment, limiting benefits and denying claims.
Medical providers and consumers as well as small and large businesses would all benefit from this approach. The system of relegating a nation’s health care to those interested only in profit is uncaring and in many ways, abusive.
Herb Wild
Punta Gorda, Fla., Sept. 7, 2007
To the Editor:
David Brooks seems favorably disposed to Stuart Butler’s health care reform plan for Americans.
While Mr. Butler’s plan may be an excellent plan, it is both innovative and untried. I propose a health care plan for all Americans that is in place and is presently in use and has a high satisfaction rating albeit slightly controversial because it is a single-payer program.
I am speaking of the health care package that the United States government provides our president, vice president, senators, members of the House, Supreme Court justices, secretaries of state, defense and so on.
I am confident that this health care package that our government offers to our leaders would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of our citizens. It’s worth a try.
Isaac Comerchero
New York, Sept. 7, 2007
To the Editor:
David Brooks makes what he imagines to be two salient points explaining why single-payer health systems are not right for America: they are “European” and invariably centralized.
He is mistaken on both counts. Canada has just such a system but is distinctly North American.
Canadian health care, moreover, is delivered by 10 provincial and several territorial governments, not the government of Canada. Almost all of these jurisdictions use highly regionalized delivery systems.
There are, in fact, substantial variations in structure, procedures, coverage and financing, and these mirror and accommodate many local realities. Canadian health care already is the continent-spanning flexible web of networks Mr. Brooks so admires.
Ronald Hikel
Stratford, Ontario, Sept. 7, 2007
The writer was deputy minister of health for the province of Manitoba, 2000-1, and co-chairman of the federal-provincial council of deputy ministers of health.
To the Editor:
David Brooks espouses a new, complex health care plan redolent of the costly Medicare replacement plans in effect since the beginning of 2007. The federal government is now spending additional overhead to finance plans that are partly public and partly private and that have replaced, for some of us, traditional Medicare.
Two local medical groups my wife and I have tried to use this year will not accept our Medicare replacement insurance, even though both accept traditional Medicare.
Mr. Brooks writes that Americans “will not likely embrace a system that forces them to defer to the central government when it comes to making fundamental health care choices.”
He is manifestly wrong.
Millions find traditional Medicare more than satisfactory, and I lament that my wife and I are presently covered by an inadequate replacement plan rather than the excellent central government plan known as Medicare.
Robbins Winslow
Naples, Fla., Sept. 7, 2007