Bad Arguments against the NY Health Act
This article written by Lev Ginsburg originally appeared in the February 21st issue of the Empire Report, rehashing old, untrue insurance industry talking points against the single payer NY Health Act - which NYPAN strongly supports. The article has been edited slightly for brevity and to allow us to offer rebuttal of the various claims made in it.
THE ARTICLE CLAIMS:
“Most people are happy with their health care coverage and don’t want to lose it. That may seem a surprising statement, but it’s a true one. While people often like to complain about our health care system, when asked about their own health care, time and again people say they are happy and don’t want to change. Here in New York, a new poll shows an overwhelming 91 percent of those surveyed are generally satisfied with their current insurance and want to keep it. Of those, a majority (55 percent) are very satisfied.”
OUR REBUTTAL:
This is a straw man: what makes people think they can keep their insurance in any case? Our current system is extremely volatile, with employers changing their carriers and their coverage annually, providing no long-term stability. The only people who have the ability to keep seeing the same doctors are those on Medicare - a single payer plan.
THE ARTICLE CLAIMS:
“In addition to concerns about losing their coverage, New Yorkers also recognize that the NY Health Act could force them to wait longer to get care and prevent them from seeing the doctors of their choice.”
OUR REBUTTAL:
Who are they kidding? In the CURRENT for profit system, people routinely have to wait for service and routinely CAN’T see doctors of their choice - instead having to jump through hoops to find a doctor that their plan covers (and it keeps changing). In fact, insurance companies spend a considerable amount of money DENYING coverage, forcing patients and doctors to go through a lengthy, debilitating process to try and get the coverage they signed up for. And doctors spend a large amount of time every working day doing insurance paperwork and fighting with insurance companies for approvals. Whereas with the NY Health Act, you will have your choice of doctor and hospital - something the current system absolutely cannot guarantee.
THE ARTICLE CLAIMS:
“Of course, people are also concerned about the cost. Estimates put the starting cost of the NY Health Act at about $310 billion. Funding the new system would require up to $250 billion in new taxes, which would more than double New York State’s current annual spending on health care. These massive tax increases would be devastating to consumers and businesses who are already reeling from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.”
OUR REBUTTAL:
How do they think we can afford it NOW (hint: we can’t)? The money to pay for NY Health is the same money we already spend, but simply funneled through one, simplified payer process instead of the hundreds of insurance companies and plans doctors now have to deal with. And this saves money - a LOT of money. The overhead costs of the current system - profits, advertising, bloated CEO salaries, huge staffs to deny claims, sales and marketing - are in the 20-30% range. Medicare, on the other hand (a plan that people actually DO like), has a tiny 3% overhead. This saves us about $70,000,000,000 a year - yes, that’s SEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR - providing more than enough money to not only cover all of us, but to provide truly comprehensive coverage (physical, dental, optical, mental health, drugs and long term care) with NO networks, NO deductibles, NO co-pays and NO balance billing.
THE ARTICLE CLAIMS:
“Over the last decade, through a public-private partnership, New York has done more than almost any other state to expand health care coverage, bolster services for its most vulnerable residents and improve the quality of care. This partnership has been responsible for assuring that patients have access to the care they need. New York’s Essential Plan — an extremely successful program that provides high quality coverage to more than 800,000 low-income individuals and certain immigrants is another example of the strong public-private partnership the state has taken to expand coverage.”
OUR REBUTTAL:
The Essential Plan is good, but, funding for the plan keeps getting cut. The 49 H&H hospitals - the “hospitals of last resort” that many people depend on - are struggling to stay open, continually cutting staff and services, forcing long wait times or outright denials of service. Another very successful program - Medicaid - is facing intense cost-cutting pressure, and has by design limited where patients can go and which doctors they can see, thereby creating delays, long wait times, and other forms of care rationing, forcing the burden onto poor people.
We agree about building on the success of public health programs. Unfortunately, the Essential Plan fails to protect people from the worst abuses of the unaccountable private insurance companies who manage it. We cannot forget the story of Daniel Desnoyer of Stillwater, NY, who was 29 when he died by suicide after failing to get his medication refilled because he was late on a $20 payment to Fidelis. Read the story of the Desnoyers family.
THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:
When Lev Ginsburg tells us "Voters overwhelmingly support building on the current corporately run insurance system (82% support/15% oppose), does he know that the NY Health Act DOES build on the current health system with the same doctors and nurses and dentists and optometrists and therapists that we love?
The Act just simplifies how those providers are paid.
When the poll asked his 601 voters if they "would be willing to pay more than they currently pay for healthcare to create a new publicly financed health insurance system or not" perhaps he should have asked them if they would be willing to pay LESS for a government run health insurance system.
Because 95% of New Yorkers will pay less under the NY Health Act than they do now.
The poll could also have asked "would they be willing to pay less even if that government system pays 100% of their healthcare bill and eliminates copays, deductibles, and surprise bills?
Because the NY Health Act does.
He could have asked "would they be willing to pay less if they knew they were getting 100% of the cost of their dental, hearing, and vision coverage included?
Because the NY Health Act does.
He could have asked "would they be willing to pay less if they knew they were getting 100% of their medicines and durable goods like walkers included?
Because the NY Health Act does.
He could have asked “Would they be willing to pay less if a government plan included Long Term Care coverage for people who need help staying in their homes?
Because the NY Health Act does.
With billions in savings from negotiating lower drug prices and from simplifying administration by not denying care or delaying payments or otherwise jerking patients and doctors around, the NY Health Act provides infinitely better coverage than we get now, and, by eliminating a huge, complicated bureaucracy, it does so for far less than we pay now.
We don’t need a poll to tell us New Yorkers’ answer to the question “Would you like better healthcare coverage for less than it costs you now?”.
u