Here is a new version of the letter to my senators on health reform.
Dear Senator [Menendez, Lautenberg],
I am deeply saddened by your refusal to support Medicare-for-All, or a single payer national health insurance system, in the United States of America. The United States currently spends 16% of its GDP on health care, far higher than any other industrialized nation. It is estimated that 31% of expenditures in our system are devoted to administrative overhead--double the Canadian figure. Even not considering the inhumane plight of our 47 million uninsured and even greater number of under-insured, our nation would be far better off simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone.
I urge you to co-sponsor the American Health Security Act of 2009, S.703, to create a Medicare-for-All national health insurance system in America similar to the one in Canada. This bill is our best bet both to cover the uninsured and contain health care costs.
This idea is fairly popular nationally. A July poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 58% percent support when the words "single payer" were not used to describe Medicare-for-All and 50% plurality support when they were. Given New Jersey's relative liberalism compared to the nation as a whole, it is near certain that a majority of your constituents support this. Please take their opinions into account.
Health outcomes in America are also not exactly impressive. Our infant mortality rate, often taken as a good general measure of overall health in a society, is 29th in the world despite our high income per capita. In deaths from preventable diseases we ranked last among 19 industrialized nations in a recent study. The former statistic is clearly due in part to the health care system and the latter one even more so. Please take the sensible step forward and co-sponsor S.703.
While support for Medicare-for-All is my central point, I would also like to share with you my opinion on health reform legislation more likely to pass this year. This would include bills such as those now being considered in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee.
I urge you to vote for any final bill only if public programs such as a public option and Medicaid are expected to cover most of those newly insured under the bill. Public programs are generally more efficient at providing health insurance and so a bill is only a good compromise if they have the largest role. Bills that are mostly a mandate for private insurance are unacceptable and could drive up costs. This is the current situation in Massachusetts where the system signed into law by Mitt Romney has been a failure.
This gold standard is not met by the America's Affordable Health Choices Act written by the HELP Committee and certainly not by the legislation now being written in the Finance Committee. If either of these bills come to the Senate floor, I urge you to vote nay and to be clear about why.
Sincerely,
...
Healthcare-NOW! Member