Making Government Work for the Health of All

John Battista speaking at a rally for universal health care in Hartford.

By John Battista, M.D., New Milford

John Battista, M.D. is an Independent candidate for State Representative in the 67th District.

In a local news article in July, my opponent for State Representative in the 67th District, Mr. Clark Chapin, asserted that the health care system of Connecticut "serves taxpayers well and shouldn't be tampered with." I strongly disagree: Our system is far too expensive, the second most expensive in the U.S. We need to let the self-employed and small businesses buy into the state employees health care insurance pool in order to bring down their health care insurance expenses. Our "shouldn't be tampered with" system leaves 10% of the non-elderly in Connecticut uninsured. This not only diminishes their health but also costs taxpayers over $100 million per year in avoidable hospitalizations. We need to insist that all employers who do business with the state provide health insurance for their employees.

The for-profit, managed care insurance system utilized by 50% of Connecticut residents disrupts continuity of care, violates patient confidentiality, denies needed care, results in poorer quality of care, and is frustrating to access, both for patients and providers. We need to stop for-profit companies from determining health care treatment.

The CT Husky program for the poor is woefully inadequate, particularly in the areas of dental care and psychiatric care. It needs to be replaced with a primary care, case management model as has been done by other states.

Seniors throughout Connecticut are being injured by the high price of prescription medications. The ConnPace system that assists poor seniors in purchasing medications needs to expanded not just to all seniors, but to all Connecticut residents who have difficulty paying for prescription medications. This would cost taxpayers nothing. Our health care system in Connecticut is in need of serious change. Mr. Chapin clearly is not the person to do it.

We Need a New Health Care System

Of course, the true solution to Connecticut’s health care problems is universal health insurance for all state residents. This would not only solve our health care problems but would save $1 billion a year, the result of decreased administrative costs and purchasing medications in bulk. Yet, Mr. Chapin states that "if a public system could actually save $1 billion a year, it would already be in place." This is a naive and misleading statement. In fact, the state's study of universal health insurance for all Connecticut residents completed under Governor Weicker, which predicted $1 billion dollars in savings from enacting universal health insurance in Connecticut, has been confirmed by many other studies throughout the nation.

For example, when our neighbor, Massachusetts, studied the cost of public universal health insurance in that state, they predicted savings of $1.7 billion per year. The most recent study of publicly-financed universal health insurance, completed by the State of California this year, predicts savings of at least $6 billion per year for California. Similarly, studies on universal health care insurance for the entire U.S. done by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office predicted savings of $100 billion to $200 billion a year.

These predictive studies are in accord with the experience of industrialized countries, all of which have such universal health insurance systems except the United States. In 1999, the most recent year for which international data are available, Americans spent an average of $4,358 for medical care on each person, compared with an average of $1,764 in the other 29 industrialized nations. Yet, despite our spending over double per capita on health care, these countries have much better health statistics.

Longitudinal studies comparing the U.S. and Canada show that Canada and the U.S. had equal health care costs when Canada enacted universal health insurance in 1965. However, universal health insurance is so powerful in saving money that Canada now spends now spends around 9% of its GDP for universal health care, while the U.S. spends about 14% of its GDP on health care while leaving 40 million Americans uninsured.

Universal health insurance would cost less money because the savings from decreased administrative expenses and purchasing medication in bulk is more than enough to cover the cost of the increased demand for medical care that would result from universal coverage. Mr. Chapin apparently does not know this basic health care funding information.

Why We Don't Have Universal Health Insurance

What is even more disturbing about Mr. Chapin's statements on health care is that they suggest no understanding that our not having a universal health insurance system has little to do with the facts: that such a system would save money, as all state, national and international studies reveal. Rather, what he appears to be ignorant of is that we do not have universal health care insurance because the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, whose profits would decrease under such a system, and who are the largest campaign contributors of any industry, have succeeded in gaining control over the votes of our politicians and political leaders.

For example, the CT Health Care Security Act which I wrote in 1999 and which sought to enact universal health insurance for all Connecticut residents, was the most heavily negatively lobbied health bill in the State Assembly after it passed out of committee. As a result, the bill was not raised for vote. Similarly, the federal McDermott bill, which would have brought universal health insurance to the U.S., was the most heavily negatively lobbied bill in the U.S. Congress as Clinton began his presidency. More money was spent lobbying against the McDermott bill than the combined spending of the Republicans and the Democrats in the preceding presidential election.

Thus, the fact that we do not have such a just and research-based system or even a fair hearing on such a system are due to political influence and not to the merits of such a plan. Clearly, the way to end the control of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries on our elected officials is through campaign finance reform and the public funding of elections. However, Mr. Chapin voted against campaign finance reform and the public funding of elections.

Similarly, Mr. Chapin is naive when he suggests that because the Canadian health care system is under attack it might not be good. When polled, 94% of Canadians said that they wish to retain their health care system instead of returning to the U.S.-style system. Canadians are much more satisfied with the Canadian health care system than Americans are with our health care system. In fact, many polls report that a majority of Americans would like to switch to a Canadian-style system.

The Canadian health care system is superior to the American system. For example, despite spending less per capita, Canada has a lower rate of infant mortality and a longer life expectancy that the U.S., although it lagged the U.S. in both of these categories before universal health care legislation was enacted there. The Canadian health care system is under attack by the same groups that work against universal health care in the United States: the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and their political surrogates. Big money is the problem, not the Canadian health care system.

Finally, Mr. Chapin is confused when he suggests that the system of health care insurance I advocate is a government-run health care delivery system. The current fee-for-service health care delivery system of Connecticut would remain completely intact. The only change would be that health care services would be paid for through insurance administered by a public trust. This trust would be independent of state government, although accountable to it. The trust would be under the control of a board composed of health care providers, representatives of taxpayers, advocates for patients, and public officials. Although health insurance premiums would be collected through the state revenue system, these revenues would not be state funds, but rather dedicated health care funds held by the trust, outside of the state budget. This program would take the state government out of the health care delivery system, not put it in it.

I have repeatedly challenged Clark Chapin to a debate on the Connecticut health care system and what to do about it. Now, Mr. Chapin has refused to participate in a debate with me sponsored by the League of Women Voters. I was greatly honored that the League selected the 67th District as one of the few races in Connecticut worthy of their interest. I consider Mr. Chapin’s refusal to debate to be part of his ongoing failure to support democracy, as already demonstrated by his votes against campaign finance reform, direct primaries and election day registration. By his refusal to participate in this debate, he has deprived voters of an important opportunity to become educated and make an informed choice.

For more info about my positions on the issues facing out state and district, or to find out how you can help in the final weeks of the campaign, call me at 860-354-9773; or visit <www.battista2002.us>.