business leaders worship marketplace ideology "almost like religion," says raymond werntz, who for nearly thirty years ran healthcare programs for whitman corporation, a chicago-based multinational holding company. "it's emotional." in 1999 werntz became the first president of the consumer health education council in washington, a program of the employee benefit research institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group. he saw it as his mission to try to persuade employers to face the "huge, huge" issue of the uninsured because, he told me, "business has to be involved with the solution." the problem that emerged was its "unwillingness to even think about a solution." last year, after funding ran out, a disappointed werntz became the council's last and only president.
publicly financed universal health insurance comes in different forms. for americans, however, none should hold more interest than single-payer. it's "one and the same thing" as medicare for everybody, werntz told me. does the corporate america that's happy with medicare understand this? i asked. "it's a dialogue that hasn't happened yet," he replied. "my life for four years was trying to get business people in a room with single-payer people. i couldn't do it." ceos of large corporations see it as something "that smacks of socialism," werntz said, and therefore as "heresy."
somehow, they don't see medicare as heresy. yet it's largely why the tax-financed share of us health spending is "the highest in the world," according to drs. steffie woolhandler and david himmelstein, associate professors at harvard medical school and founders of physicians for a national health program. writing in the july/august 2002 issue of health affairs, they put the share at 59.8 percent. no wonder: federal tax revenues pay for medicare, medicaid and the medical-care systems for the military, the veterans administration, federal employees and congress; income-, sales- and property-tax revenues buy coverage for state and local public employees. taxation also hugely subsidizes health insurance while benefiting mostly "the affluent," the authors noted.
in 1991 the gao made a stark finding regarding single-payer's benefits: "if the universal coverage and single-payer features of the canadian system [had been] applied in the united states" in that year, "the savings in administrative costs"--$66.9 billion--"would have been more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of americans who are currently uninsured," the gao said in a report. the $3 billion left over "would be enough...to permit a reduction, or possibly even the elimination, of copayments and deductibles."
