On the Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act (AFA): An Integrative View

Since the main goal of any
Health Care system should be to serve the public, let us start by contemplating
the fact that the top 5 countries in health care outcomes do much better than
the USA and at ½ the expense per person per year. How do they do it? They
provide the most basic services through a SINGLE PAYER system. Doctors work for
themselves, but are paid by a single insurer, thereby reducing overhead,
paperwork, and exclusionary regulations. As bad as state-run programs are, keep
in mind that Medicare-Medicaid have an overhead of < 5%; private insurance
companies’ overhead costs are >20%. No doubt this is offensive to
Republicans.

If
you disagree with the statements above, could you compromise if each state regulated
its own Single Payer program, thereby eliminating Federal intrusions while
focusing on each State’s idiosyncrasies?[1] An integrative,
middle-of-the-road solution is more likely to succeed in view of the changes
being implemented in those aforementioned countries. For example, the “English National Health
Service Embarks on Controversial and Risky Market-Style Reforms in Health Care”[2]
as General Practitioners are making more decisions, patients choose who they
see and local governments exercise more control.

Now, let’s offend Democrats: whether we call it a
“penalty,” or a “tax,” I do not want to pay into a system that is rigged in
favor of Pharmaceuticals, Insurance companies and other Big Business
Corporations who have practically taken over Health Care. The whole thing has
become big business with only peripheral platitudes about serving people. Sure,
the system “does” a lot to people; unfortunately, only 80% of it has any
validating scientific evidence and seem to be driven by profit only.[3]

The ACA only allows more
people to have their “symptoms managed,” not the root of their health problems.
The Act perpetuates a “Disease Care system” while doing very little for true
primary prevention, or the factors that lead to disease, like nutrition,
mind-body, and environmental issues.[4] Sure, secondary
prevention, like mammograms and bone densitometries are covered, but, they only
“prevent” disease after they have started. Besides, tests like those are not
only overdone but unnecessary in many patients under 50 and under 65 years of
age respectively.

For years I have lived
without health insurance, refusing to cave in to fear and misinformation. I
have felt fairly confident (knock on wood) that I am likely to avoid disease by
eating a ton of vegetables, exercising and living a clean, relatively balanced
lifestyle. Of course, not everyone may be able to do this: let them join any
health plan THEY CHOOSE. Or, better yet, help them study this whole matter and
vote for politicians who in the future may support a State-based Single Payer
system. With savings from overhead, paperwork and those accrued from bulk drug
purchases in other countries, which are not allowed in the USA presently, such
a system would not force anyone to participate, yet allow anyone to buy up
better coverage beyond the bare necessities provided to all.

The argument that such a
system would be unfair competition to existing insurance companies is not
backed up by history. Is not the US Post Office struggling against FedEx and
UPS? And the argument that we need to force everyone to participate in order to
lower cost by spreading it out is not valid, either: cost went up in
Massachusetts with an approach similar to the ACA, because a significant number
of those who joined were desperate to use services. Insurance companies were
hoping for healthy, young patients to offset the additional burden, never mind
the inherent unfairness. By the way, most doctors in Massachusetts preferred a
single payer system.[5]

The 4 million Americans who
feel robbed of any choice will likely pay that “penalty,” or “tax,” if getting
Health Care coverage they do not believe in nor plan to use, is cheaper.