Response to a Sentinel editorial and op ed critical of Single Payer

To the Editor:

Several articles in Sunday's Sentinel were critical of Single Payer and the concept of "Medicare for all."  The editorial said, "Imagine a
government-run heart transplant."  I'm on MediCare and so are many of my neighbors and friends.  We get operations, blood tests, and are diagnosed by private doctors, not by Cheney or Gonzales.

One main difference between being on MediCare and my previous plan, Kaiser, is that I now have a much wider selection of physicians and specialists, and much less hassle with the insurance aspects of payment.  When I was in the Kaiser plan, I was lucky to wait for years until my name came up for the doctor I wanted.  Then I was even luckier to have more than 15 minutes for a visit to figure out why I was among the 10% who did not respond favorably to the last prescribed pharmaceutical.  One time I fainted in the waiting room, and was ignored by the medical staff who were all rushing out to lunch.  I was found under my chair by another patient, who called the remaining nurse to help revive me.

When my friend needed a MRI at another hospital, the Kaiser staff could not find his old MRI to compare.  Unfortunately, Kaiser's main goal was to save money and produce profits, and many people I know paid the cost.  Now most of my medical providers are primarily concerned with HEALING me.  I can't tell you how much my health has improved since I've been on MediCare.

Your editorial states that "treatments don't come free."  Of course not! I'm in favor of doctors, nurses, and other staffers getting a living wage. I still have health payments taken out of my checks for part time work.  I still pay my annual deductibles and copays.  It's not "free" to me.  It just works better than my previous HMO plans.

Steve Bankhead, in his op-ed piece, mentions that Canada's single-payer health care has limitations.  Yes, the wait period for certain treatments is longer than years ago.  But WHY?  Is it because single-payer sucks, or does it have something to do with the NAFTA policy that the US pushed on Canada, that led to less taxes going toward the health care system?  Are "advanced pharmaceuticals" best for everyone, or are natural substances such as calcium and pancreatin, accupuncture and chiropractic, both less expensive and more health-producing for many patients?

Bankhead sees a problem with "eliminating private health insurance."  Would he also prefer that we have have private insurance for fire and police?  If I work in Santa Cruz making less than a living wage, and can only afford to insure my bedroom, and my living room catches on fire -- what will the insurance company do?  Hopefully, I'll be able to buy a garden hose to leave next to my living room door!

I, too, am a pre-boomer with teen age boys.  I want my kids to have health CARE (not just private insurance) that will keep them much more healthy than I have been.  I want them to be able to change jobs when they choose, to have children without doubling or tripling their health insurance payments causing them to choose between organic food or health insurance.  That's why I support Conyer's HR 676 and Kuehl and Laird's SB 840.

Let's have a serious discussion on all the pros and cons of our three
choices for better health care in California.  The Sentinel can assist a
serious discussion in its pages, or follow the trend to just publish rants
from the health corporations and their supporters.  Health care is the
second most important issue this year, after the "war on terrorism."  And we're all watching!

Barri Boone

Former Poverty Program organizer, Eligibility Worker for the Department of Social Services, and presently a Homecare Worker


"The reason I am political is I want there to be a juster apportionment of the world's pleasure and a less unjust apportionment of the world's pain."

--Marge Piercy