The Wall Street Journal
Government-Funded Care Is the Best Health Solution By Benjamin Brewer, M.D.
April 18, 2006
A recently approved Massachusetts plan designed to force all residents to get health insurance was a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough.
Under the Massachusetts approach, there will still be a maze of plans provided by any number of insurers. That multiplicity is the problem. Multiple insurers and multiple plans create layers of unneeded expense and bureaucracy related to billing, collections and the entire assembly line of middlemen between the service rendered and the payment.
The solution that would really put health-care dollars, and providers, to their best use would be a single-payer system — namely, government-funded health coverage for all.
It took me a while to conclude that a single-payer health system was the best approach. My fear had been that government would screw up medicine to the detriment of my patients and my practice. If done poorly, the result might be worse than what I’m dealing with now.
But increasingly I’ve come to believe that if done right, health care in America could be dramatically better with true single-payer coverage; not just another layer — a part D on top of a part B on top of a part A, but a simplified, single payer that would cover all Americans, including those who could afford the best right now.
For the full article:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114528925682927634-_ZwDiTbxugmJW0cqxJ_jJ_ogY8g_20060517.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Many were surprised to see this frank endorsement of single payer reform appearing in The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps even more remarkable was the decision of the editors to provide free access to this particular article, ensuring much broader distribution than most of the Journal’s subscription-only content.
The editors have not endorsed single payer. In fact, an editorial today calls for tackling the problem of the uninsured by allowing the market to “start operating as it should.” Yet all credible economists agree that the market has no realistic answers for the uninsured who have limited income and significant health care needs. The editors of The Wall Street Journal do understand this as well, even if they remain silent on it.
They also certainly recognize the pressing need for reform and that it needs to be a well informed process by including all options in our national dialogue. Maybe they are ready to give passive support to the democratic process, even if that means that the government will be involved.