Coverage

[Erich H. Loewy]

As far as "single payer" being socialized (and what would be wrong
with that?) that already is nonsense. All single payer means is that
there is one and only one (be it government or private) agency which
run the payment to a variety of plans. "Socialized" means that the
government from general taxation will pay for medical care within the
limits of what the legislators decide. Everyone gets "the same"--that
is, for things affecting outcome, and no one can buy more. It seems
on many accounts to be the most rational going. Countries like the UK
have a "single payer" and are socialized--that is, the money comes
from taxation for basic health care but people are entitled to also
carry private insurance. Over the years the difference in things that
matter to outcome (waiting time, nursing staff, medical staff, etc.)
have been vast.

Single payer does not equate to socialized. Over the years I have
seen nothing terrible about it being socialized. Wealth or lack of
same should not be the deciding factour in our getting or not getting
access and continuance of care--all other things seem to favour the
"upper classes".

Dr Erich H. Loewy
Professor of Medicine and Founding Chair of Bioethics (emeritus)
Associate in Philosophy
University of California, Davis
11465 Ghirardelli
Court

Gold River, CA 95670
TEL/FAX: 916-635-7555
Mobile : 916-240-1368

E-mail: <ehl...@ucdavis.edu>