To Our Health, in the New Year
New York Times
LETTERS
December 21, 2007
To the Editor:
Re ”I Am Not a Health Reform,” by David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (Op-Ed, Dec. 15):
While the authors make a compelling economic argument for a single-payer health care system, they do not address a fundamental underlying question: why should a government provide health care for its citizens?
I believe that the answer to that question rests on two notions.
First, we need to accept the idea that a right to good health is essential in a democratic society. Pursuing democracy’s noble goals of life, liberty and happiness is problematic for people dealing with serious health care problems.
Second, we must put aside the idea that our health care system responds to ”market forces.” Patients needing critical care cannot bargain for the best deal.
When I had a heart attack several years ago, I was in no position to ask my cardiologist if he was inserting the least expensive stent into my blocked artery.
Rivers Singleton Jr.
Newark, Del., Dec. 15, 2007
The writer is an associate professor of biological sciences and English at the University of Delaware.
To the Editor:
As a physician in a state in which all of its citizens are now supposed to have health insurance, I am continually dismayed at the number of individuals I see who do not have health insurance or whose ”insurance” plans barely cover anything.
And among those lucky enough to have reasonably good health insurance, I am constantly confused by the various insurance plan rules about how often I can see patients or what drugs I can prescribe.
The single-payer plan that David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler put forward would not only cost less than our current expenditures on health care and simultaneously cover everyone, but it would also be far simpler for both patients and physicians to navigate.
Why can’t the leading Democratic candidates muster the courage to propose real health reform that will save lives, time and money — and in addition that would be the most equitable of all options — instead of rehashing proposals that have never resulted in universal coverage and haven’t done anything to rein in the costs of health care?
We have single-payer armed services, fire prevention and road maintenance. Aren’t we long overdue for single-payer universal health care?
J. Wesley Boyd
Needham, Mass., Dec. 15, 2007
To the Editor:
David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler present several important cases in which states that have tried to put into effect health insurance plans based on an employer or individual mandate have failed both to restrain costs and to cover the uninsured.
We agree that the crux of this failure lies in the fact that ”reliance on private insurers makes universal coverage unaffordable.”
Private insurance companies waste billions of dollars a year on marketing and administrative costs that do nothing to improve the quality of our health care. Physicians and hospitals are forced to waste money on staff hired solely for the purpose of filling out endless forms required by multiple insurers used by their patients.
That is why we are convinced, and numerous studies have shown, that a single-payer national health system is the most efficient, cost-effective way to provide universal coverage. It is time our elected officials stopped treating health care as a commercial commodity and recognized it as a public good. We all suffer if we all do not have access to quality, affordable health care.
Peter Pepper
New York, Dec. 15, 2007
The writer is president of The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring, an organization dedicated to community, Yiddish culture and social justice.
To the Editor:
Your compelling Op-Ed article cites the overwhelming evidence that the Democratic front-runners’ ”mandate model” for health care won’t work.
In 1999, we wrote a single-payer bill in Connecticut. We argued that despite being the insurance mecca, Connecticut — small and wealthy — was a good place to experiment with this, following the example of Social Security, which began in one state. Alas, despite popular support here for a publicly financed insurance plan, such an experiment was apparently too dangerous for the insurance industry.
What is truly dangerous is the vise grip corporations have on our candidates, hence our policies. Consequently, third parties like the Green Party, which advocates publicly financed elections and single-payer health insurance, are, like Dennis J. Kucinich, not given a hearing.
It appears that until our political system is transformed, neither will our health care system.
Justine McCabe & John Battista
New Milford, Conn., Dec. 15, 2007
The writers are, respectively, a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist.