In "Why single-payer is not likely our path forward" (Sept. 17), Prof. Lynn A. Blewett said that she would support a Medicare-for-all type single-payer health plan but that she believes obstacles make it unlikely to pass. She suggests we give up on achieving the best solution and settle for covering more people by focusing on certain population segments.
Blewett was on the mark when she said, "The U.S. health care system is unique." That's true, but not always in a good way. We squander the talents of our excellent doctors and nurses, clinics and hospitals, medical research and technology on a dysfunctional system for accessing care. We are unique in our high costs — spending twice as much as other industrialized countries, while delivering worse health outcomes. We are also unique in being the only industrialized country that doesn't provide health care for all of its people.
Expanding our current system is not the right approach. The cost of American health care is one-sixth of our entire economy; competing nations spend only a tenth of theirs on health care. Warren Buffett recently described medical costs as "the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness."
Whether it is the national legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders with 16 of his colleagues or our proposed Minnesota Health Plan (mnhealthplan.org), we want to reduce costs while providing better care.
I don't want "government-run" health care or "insurance-run" health care, where government or insurance companies or employers tell us which doctors we can see or what care we receive.
The Minnesota Health Plan (MHP) would be a patient-directed system where people choose their doctors and where medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors. It would replace the health insurance system, covering dental, mental health, prescriptions and all medical needs. The MHP would ensure sufficient medical capacity to keep rural hospitals open and prevent waiting lines.
Wouldn't a universal system cost more? Economic studies in the U.S. and real-world empirical evidence from other countries consistently show that a universal system costs less, not more.
To understand why a logical health system costs less than our "unique" system, contrast the way we fund schools vs. hospitals. If public schools were financed like hospitals: