Skip to content Skip to footer

An Effective Prescription for Our Failing Health-Care System

A new book examines the ACA and shows why more fundamental reform is imperative.

(Image: Health care costs via Shutterstock)

Part of the Series

How Obamacare is Unsustainable: Why We Need a Single-Payer Solution for All Americans. By John Geyman, MD, Copernicus Healthcare, January 2015.

The Affordable Care Act is a sitting duck. Working with private insurance companies, hospital chains and Big Pharma, Congress superimposed arcane regulations on an already Byzantine system of financing health care.

Dr. John Geyman cannot resist this target. His new book, How Obamacare is Unsustainable, confirms that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is not the pathway to a better health-care system. It is one of the biggest impediments.

The structure of this critique reflects Geyman’s organized mind. The first of three parts reviews the unhappy history of American health-care reform. The second assesses our health-care landscape five years into the ACA. The last presents a solution: a national single-payer health plan.

History first. Geyman notes that President Obama, from whom the ACA derives its nickname, doomed the reform from its inception.

By inviting the insurance industry, hospital chains and pharmaceutical companies to set the agenda, Obama adopted a strategy similar to his unsuccessful predecessor, President Clinton, in the early 1990s.

This time, these key components of the “medical-industrial complex” fought first with outside industries, then with patient interest groups, and finally with each other. Organized medicine joined the fray. It was not pretty.

“Health-care ‘reform’ through the ACA,” says Geyman, “was framed and hijacked by corporate stakeholders, themselves in large part responsible for system problems of health care and dedicated to perpetuating their self-interests in an unfettered health-care marketplace.”

Not surprisingly, the needs of this privileged complex were addressed by the resulting legislation. The needs of patients were not.

Geyman refines the definition of patient interests. He mentions, with some contempt, the four “pillars of patients’ rights” promoted by Florida’s governor, Rick Scott: Choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility. These “pillars,” notes Geyman, support a political, not a health-care, agenda.

Geyman even refines the “Triple Aim” of Dr. Donald Berwick. He replaces “improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care” with “access, cost and quality.”

Note the key addition of “access.” The best care is immaterial without access. And the biggest impediment to access is lack of money, even for the insured, given rising copays and deductibles.

By Geyman’s criteria, the ACA fails. Governor Scott and Dr. Berwick would agree.

What next? “It is futile to embark on unproven or disproven incremental tweaks to our present system while ignoring health policy and experience around the world,” warns Geyman. Every other industrialized country provides better care to more people for less money. What can they teach us?

Geyman answers: A national health-care plan, with single-payer financing and not-for-profit delivery. This suggestion is not new; Geyman and others have advocated this alternative for decades. Evidence validates this: In every population, single payer provides better care to more people for less money than private insurance.

Some dismiss single payer as “Un-American.” Geyman disagrees. Single payer “is completely in step with traditional American values, including efficiency, choice, value, equity and integrity. These values . . . are echoed by both major political parties.” Single payer is as American as . . . well, Medicare, America’s largest single-payer-like system.

A note on style. Geyman, professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Medicine, clearly suffered greatly listening to tedious monologues from academics exploiting captive audiences. In contrast, Geyman’s readers get respect. Each chapter begins with intended points, then offers colorful and immaculately documented examples, and concludes with a conclusion. Refreshing.

By the final chapter, few readers will remain unconvinced, fewer still will lack comprehension, and none will have lost interest. Given a topic renowned for incomprehensible diatribes (i.e. health-care reform), this is a respectable achievement.

One deficiency. Every other industrialized country provides universal care at less cost than we do. But Geyman fails to note that only a handful use the single-payer financing, not-for-profit delivery format that he advocates. This does not invalidate his thesis, but some readers may miss learning other options.

Nonetheless, Geyman’s national health plan is credible. America’s need for reform received validation from a surprising source. Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, said of his industry, “The system doesn’t work; it’s broke today. The end of insurance companies, the way we’ve run the business in the past, is here.”

How Obamacare is Unsustainable confirms not only Mr. Bertolini’s despair of the pre-ACA health-care system, but the despair of patients who learn the ACA leaves our system just as broken.

Dr. Geyman’s text is a blueprint for repair.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.