City Council Officially Supports Single-Payer Universal Healthcare
With the estimate in hand that single-payer universal healthcare in Pennsylvania would mean that each year “$38.5 million could be saved in Lancaster County,” Lancaster city council voted last week to endorse two bills before the state legislature that would make it happen. NewsLanc reports that Philadelpha, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, West Reading, and Wilkes Barre are other municipalities that have endorsed the legislation.
Universal health care = less bureaucracy
And there was much rejoicing.
I’m pleased by this development. I support single-payer universal healthcare because
- I don’t think layers of bureaucracy and administration contribute to a person’s health, and they don’t add much value to the process of providing health care to people. Paying for them is largely waste, to be minimized as much as possible.
- I am convinced by the projections that it would be cheaper just to give everyone in the state all the care they need, for free, than it is to live within our current whacked-out system of insurance and HMOs.
- Health care is a basic human right.
And so, I’m glad that my city, along with a majority of my fellow U.S. citizens, supports it, too.
Comments
Interesting perspective.
I Agree:
1. Bureaucracy and administration (do not) contribute to a person’s health.
2. We live in a system of “whacked-out system of insurance and HMO’s.
3. We have a moral obligation to be generous with our neighbors.
I need to understand better what is behind “Health care is a basic human right”
“…along with a majority of my fellow U.S. citizens, supports it.”
Supports it with what? Wanting the free care or supports it with their hard earned money? Hhmmm…
I have to disagree with you on this one, Daniel. This isn’t the right answer. This is another example of our government panicking and shoving a plan that’s not thought-out thoroughly enough in attempt to appease the people (see Plan, The Stimulus as an example).
Unfortunately, the large assumption that never seems to leave the conversation about health care is that either the employer or the government is responsible for providing health care. Why is this? The whole concept of employers paying for health care was supposed to be a temporary way of attracting employees after WWII since the companies couldn’t raise wages. Congress bought in, made it tax-sexy, and it’s stuck ever since. This was done in an era when large corporations employed most of the workforce. Today, it’s the small businesses that employ most workers, and they can’t handle the burden.
Government isn’t the answer though. The conversation needs to continue. What about creating health-insurance groups based on geography, i.e. counties or boroughs? The law of large numbers still applies, and each household would be responsible for the full cost the insurance – giving them incentive to shop their plans around, thus creating more competition among health insurance companies, and possibly resulting in lowered premiums.
Is that the perfect answer? Probably not – but it’s the type of conversation that we (and our elected officials) need to have happen and start thinking outside the box.
I’ve got to agree with Jeremy on this one. The idea is a good one on the surface, but how wise is it to let government manage health care? I have yet to see any back-end plan that will take care of the details. The ultimate question: what are the costs and how will the Government pull it off? The expense of no competition and the bureaucracy that is the Government make me skeptical.
However, I agree that in this proud country everyone should have access to health-care. Correct diagnosis but iffy prescription in my opinion.