Single-payer health insurance is not the answer
The Loudoun Times-Mirror on July 8 published a letter to the editor advocating government-run, single-payer health insurance. That "cure" would be worse than our admitted current health-care problem.
Our current third-party payer system of health insurance and the proposed single-payer (government-run) system present the same problem. The payer, whether the government or an insurance company, decides which patients will receive which treatments. Call me skeptical, but I see no evidence that the federal government will be better at making medical decisions than private insurance companies.
Consider a real-life situation. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with cancer at age 80. At least with our current system, if her insurer refused coverage, there were alternatives. She could choose to pay out of pocket, go into debt, seek financial support from extended family, friends and/or charity. None of these choices would have been optimal, but at least she could get the treatment she needed to live.
Now consider the same scenario with a single-payer, government-run system. Would a bureaucrat study statistical tables and correctly determine the value my mother-in-law's life has added to our family, or society? I fear not. More importantly, I fear the potential for a policy that would declare that surgery for people above a certain age is not cost effective. When government is the "single payer," by definition it prevents anyone from choosing any of the alternatives, and puts the final decision in the hands of a bureaucrat. If the government were her insurer, to whom would she appeal? Her congressman?
Currently insurance companies are protected by federal law from malpractice lawsuits, even though they are in effect practicing medicine by the tests and procedures they agree to pay for, and more importantly by the ones they refuse to pay for. To establish accountability for the impact of their decisions, insurance companies should be equally accountable for malpractice. That way, the bottom line will include the cost of negative outcomes that were clearly preventable with proper treatment.
"Cherry picking" by insurance companies, where they pick who they will insure, refusing coverage or pricing out of the market the old or those with pre-existing medical conditions, is a problem with our current system. At first glance, government-run insurance is a solution. However, "cherry-picking" will be replaced with government-mandated rationing. Example: In the United Kingdom, the government-run single-payer National Health Service initially declined to cover the breast cancer drug Herceptin or the colon cancer drugs Avastin and Erbitux based on the cost of the drugs, rather than their effectiveness in extending life. Public outcry forced a change, but how many less common ailments and cures are denied for the same reason?
Our health-care system is complex and its problems are more so. Eliminating cherry picking and removing the protection from malpractice suits are two relatively simple solutions, but by no means a complete list. A single-payer government-run system will only change the problems, it won't fix them.
Patricia Phillips
Sterling