1-21-14 – Is single payer health care necessary?

In pushing Vermont toward a single payer healthcare system, Governor Shumlin and many others seem to equate universal health insurance with a single payer system.  In their view, all of the other developed/industrialized countries provide universal insurance coverage, and we need a single payer system to provide universal coverage as well.  My purpose here is simple:  Vermonters should be aware that universal health insurance does not require a single payer approach.

As described in the blog True Cost, there are three approaches used by thirty-two developed nations to provide universal coverage [1]:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance for all residents (or citizens) and pays all health care expenses except for copays and coinsurance. Providers may be public, private, or a combination of both.  Sixteen of the nations use some variation of this approach:  Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.

Two-Tier: The government provides or mandates catastrophic or minimum insurance coverage for all residents (or citizens), while allowing the purchase of additional voluntary insurance or fee-for-service care when desired. In Singapore all residents receive a catastrophic policy from the government coupled with a health savings account that they use to pay for routine care. In other countries like Ireland and Israel, the government provides a core policy which the majority of the population supplements with private insurance.  Nine nations employ some variation of two-tier; the remaining six are Australia, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, Netherlands, and New Zealand.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that all citizens purchase insurance, whether from private, public, or non-profit insurers. In some cases the insurer list is quite restrictive, while in others a healthy private market for insurance is simply regulated and standardized by the government. In this kind of system insurers are barred from rejecting sick individuals, and individuals are required to purchase insurance, in order to prevent typical health care market failures from arising.  Seven nations use this approach:  Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, South Korea, and Switzerland.

Of these thirty-two nations then, half utilize single payer, and half use either a two-tier or an insurance mandate approach to providing universal insurance coverage.

The other often-used argument for single payer is that it will result in significant cost savings.  Consider the following comparison of health care spending per capita for thirteen industrialized nations with universal health insurance, plus the United States, from International Profiles of Health Care Systems, 2013 [2]:

Country Type of Health Care System

Health Care Spending per Capita, 2011

Italy

Single Payer

                         $3,012
New Zealand

Two-Tier

                         $3,182
Japan

Single Payer

                         $3,213a
United Kingdom

Single Payer

                         $3,405
Australia

Two-Tier

                         $3,800a
Sweden

Single Payer

                         $3,925
France

Two-Tier

                         $4,118
Denmark

Two-Tier

                       $4,485
Germany

Insurance Mandate

                       $4,495
Canada

Single Payer

                       $4,522
Netherlands

Two-Tier

                       $5,099
Switzerland

Insurance Mandate

                         $5,643
Norway

Single Payer

                         $5,669
United Statesb

—–

                         $8,508

Note: The nations at the top and bottom of this list, Italy and Norway respectively, both have single payer systems.

a2010 data

bIncluded for comparison

Of these thirteen nations, seven of them have either a two-tier or insurance mandate health care system.  Clearly, single payer is not the only approach to controlling health care spending.

Advocates for single payer would like us to believe that it is the “only game in town” for providing universal, affordable health coverage.  Vermonters should challenge both the Governor and the Legislature to objectively examine all universal health care solutions that will meet the needs of Vermonters.  Vermonters deserve health care reform without a single payer bias.

[1] http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date (accessed 1/18/2014).

[2] http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2013/Nov/1717_Thomson_intl_profiles_hlt_care_sys_2013_v2.pdf (accessed 1/18/2014).

 

Posted by Richard Jesse of Essex, Vermont

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Tax Plan, Schmax Plan: It’s The Spending, Stupid

by Chris Campion The GOP has recently been working on tax reform, and both the House and Senate have versions of tax reform that are currently being hashed...

Renewable Policies Responsible for GMP’s $80 million rate increase

by Guy Page Green Mountain Power’s proposed 2018 5% rate increase will cost ratepayers $80 million, Vermontbiz.com said November 27. GMP spokesperson Kristen Carlson blames the hike on increased transmission, regional...

Exxon Mobil ‘s “Green Preening”

by John McClaughry Here’s a news item some will find surprising. The American Legislative Exchange Council is a conservative business-oriented association of legislators and corporation interests. Recently it...

New Hampshire Lowers Taxes, Raises Revenue

by Rob Roper The New Hampshire Union Leader recently posted an editorial about their legislature’s 2015 decision to cut taxes on New Hampshire businesses. The tax cuts are...

Survey: Do You Support the ESSEX Carbon Tax Proposal

TAKE THE SURVEY! Do you support the new “ESSEX” Carbon Tax proposal? This would ultimately be a $240 million tax on gasoline (32¢/gal), heating oil and diesel fuel...

Video