<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23543">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<H3 class=subtitle>New reporting by AP underscores systemic problems with
healthcare system based on for-profit insurance model</H3>
<DIV class=author><FONT size=4>- Jon Queally, staff writer </FONT></DIV><!-- $authors is created within openpublish_core/theme_helpers/node-views_article.tpl.php -->
<DIV class="node-content clear-block prose">
<DIV id=node-body>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As the political uproar surrounding the Affordable Care Act
has played out over recent months, one single fact remains: the private
insurance model—on which the law widely known as Obamacare is based—is more
complicated, more expensive, and provides less coverage than a simple,
"everybody in/nobody out," single-payer model that almost every other advanced
country in the world enjoys.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=image-right><IMG
class="imagecache imagecache-headline_image imagecache-default imagecache-headline_image_default"
title="" alt=""
src="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/single_payer_12-18-13-1.jpg"
width=275 height=254> <SPAN class=caption></SPAN></SPAN>And even within the
debate about whether or not Obamacare is a "step forward" or a "step back" for
healthcare delivery in the U.S., what's become increasingly clear—as was
predicted by progressive critics of the Obamacare model—is that though portions
of the law undoubtedly improve the kinds of coverage that some people receive,
others are still excluded from the system entirely and among those who are now
purchasing insurance for the first time in their lives many will face "sticker
shock" at the high premiums or out-sized deductibles.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As new </FONT><A
href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-some-buyers"><FONT
size=4>reporting</FONT></A><FONT size=4> by the <EM>Associated Press</EM>
highlights:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As a key enrollment deadline hits Monday, many people
without health insurance have been sizing up policies on the new government
health care marketplace and making what seems like a logical choice: They're
picking the cheapest one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Increasingly, experts in health insurance are becoming
concerned that many of these first-time buyers will be in for a shock when
they get medical care next year and discover they're on the hook for most of
the initial cost.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The prospect of sticker shock after Jan. 1, when those who
sign up for policies now can begin getting coverage, is seen as a looming
problem for a new national system that has been plagued by trouble since the
new marketplaces went online in the states in October.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>What the AP goes on to describe is how the economic hardships
that most middle- and low-income Americans experience on a daily basis compel
them to choose insurance policies with the lowest monthly premium, but don't
realize that the huge deductibles attached to those plans mean that they may
have huge medical bills to pay before their coverage kicks in.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>In addition, because the state-level exchanges from which
participants in Obamacare must purchase their plans are so complicated, many
consumers—especially those with little experience navigating the private
insurance marketplace—won't possess the technical or financial savvy to
calculate the best plan for themselves or their family.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>"I am so deeply clueless about all of this," said 29-year-old
Adrienne Matzen, an actor in Chicago, told the AP. She's been mostly
without insurance since she turned 21, but must now figure out how to receive
coverage she can afford while living with two chronic illnesses and earning less
than $20,000 a year.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Someone like Matzen—who ultimately may or may not be
individually better off under the ACA—exemplifies why the overall system is
still so far from the ideal that progressive critics of Obamacare say is
possible. The choices available to her depend on the state she lives
in, her ability to navigate the choices, and a host of other complex
factors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As the AP reports: "The complexities of insurance are
eye-glazing even for those who have it. Only 14 percent of American adults with
insurance understand deductibles, according to one recent study."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>On the other hand, a single-payer or Medicare-For-All
approach, according to its proponents, would cut out both the complexity and an
enormous part of the expense that has historically plagued private insurance
industry and will remain under Obamacare.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>This summer, Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the
UMass Amherst, released a study showing that a single-payer system like the one
described in Rep. John Conyers' HR 676 could save as much as $592 billion a year
in U.S. healthcare costs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>According to his fiscal assessment, those savings would be
more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be
uninsured in the coming year while also improving the existing coverage for
everyone else. “Paradoxically, by expanding Medicare to everyone we’d end up
saving billions of dollars annually,” Friedman said of his findings. “We’d be
safeguarding Medicare’s fiscal integrity while enhancing the nation’s health for
the long term.”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>And as Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a spokeswoman for Physicians
for a National Health Program, recently </FONT><A
href="http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/october/is-obamacare-enough-without-single-payer-patchwork-us-health-care-leaves-millions-"><FONT
size=4>explained</FONT></A><FONT size=4> on <EM>Democracy
Now!</EM>:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[Single payer/Medicare for all] means you would get a card
the day you’re born, and you’d keep it your entire life. It would entitle you
to medical care, all needed medical care, without co-payments, without
deductibles. And because it’s such a simple system, like Social Security,
there would be very low administrative expenses. We would save about $400
billion, which would allow us to afford the system. I mean, I just want to
remind you that when Medicare was rolled out in 1966, it was rolled out in six
months using index cards. So if you have a simple system, you do not have to
have all this expense and all this complexity and
work.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>