Single-Payer Health Care By Any Other Name Is Still A Monopoly
National Center for Policy Analysis
April 2, 2002
Opinion Editorial
by The Honorable Pete du Pont, Policy Chairman of NCPA
"Under our current system, if a health insurance company raised prices and reduced benefits, consumers would switch in droves. But, when there is only one game in town, consumers would have to accept whatever costs and benefits were offered. Without the incentives created by competition, a single-payer system would likely exemplify the innovation, compassion and efficiency of the Internal Revenue Service in no time."
<http://www.ncpa.org/edo/pd/2002/pd040202.html>http://www.ncpa.org/edo/pd/2002/pd040202.html
Comment: Some would consider using false innuendoes and false analogies to be the equivalent of lying. At best, they reflect the desperation of an ideologue who is unable to find logical arguments to oppose a rational concept.
National health insurance or single payer reform has been demonstrated to be the most credible option that would assure affordable, comprehensive health care for everyone. The single payer message is very powerful. It has resumed its rightful position back in the national debate on reform. Opponents are now coming out in force with their false rhetoric to attempt to beat back the anticipated groundswell of support. Be prepared.
Beth Capell, Ph.D. on Pete du Pont's rhetoric:
Du Pont's arguments are real ones that need to be effectively rebutted--they reflect beliefs deeply held by many Americans that a government-run operation for any purpose is not as good as a private-run operation. This is perhaps the toughest hurdle faced by those of us who support single payer.
His argument also speaks of the importance of the market, of competition, of choice, of consumer power.
The error here is the notion that the most important social value for health care is giving individuals choice and preserving the private market rather than assuring a basic level of service for everyone.
Choice, competition and the market work against people who need health care but have only modest incomes. But these are deeply held values in this country and the force of the belief in them must be respected.
It is entirely possible for people to hold beliefs and values that have conflicting implications--all of us do it: I want to save money, I want to go on vacation; I want to lose weight, boy, that dessert looks great; I want consumer choice in health care, I want to be sure that I can get the care I need when I need it.
The problem in this country is that policy does not yet include the principle that every one of us should be able to get health care when we need it. It exists for people with insurance (that's what the Patient Bill of Rights was about.) This principle exists for seniors, for pregnant women and for children. Here in California we are in the midst of a debate over whether it includes parents.
Fighting for the principle that every one of us should be able to get health care when we need it is fundamental.