FIVE MYTHS ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE

[Tyler Zimmer, Campus Progress]

Myth #1: It would be too expensive

UHC would actually reduce the cost of health care. The Congressional
Budget Office estimated that UHC could save up to $14 billion annually
by spreading the risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating
deductibles and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the
poor and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private
health insurance in the form of tax deductions.

Private insurance companies also spend billions on administration and
overhead, advertising, and determining and inspecting patient
eligibility, all while trying to make a profit. UHC would not be
burdened with some of those costs, like advertising, and unlike private
business, it could run at a loss and still be viable. . .

Myth #2: It would require a huge, inefficient bureaucracy

The current system is already a huge, inefficient bureaucracy! As
previously mentioned, much of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging
in the system now could be eliminated if UHC were implemented. For
example, the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient
eligibility would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible
and covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every
dollar on administration. Canada, which already has a comprehensive UHC
in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen on health
care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents of every dollar on
administration.

Myth #3: It would restrict patient choice

UHC wouldn't directly dictate what doctor you have to see in order to
get treatment and would thus enable more choice in selecting a physician
than the current system would for many, if not most, Americans.

Myth #4: It would be a socialist seizure of the medical industry

It would be nothing of the sort. Socialized medicine would entail
hospitals and doctors becoming employees of the state. UHC only provides
funding for people's health care, but doesn't provide the health care
itself. . . UHC would be no more socialist than Medicare and arguably
less so than public education.

Myth #5: UHC would impede economic growth

An added benefit of UHC would be that private business would no longer
have to worry about health-care benefits, and employees wouldn't have to
remain in unpleasant jobs just to keep their benefits. Benefits wouldn't
interfere with wage increases, and employers would have more financial
mobility. . .

http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/31196/