Jeanne Schulte Scott, director of government relations for the National Data Corporation (a nationwide medical billing service), feels as though nationalized health care is not only attainable but easy to accomplish. She feels that the process of cost shifting -- increasing revenues from some payers to offset uncompensated care costs and net payments from other payments -- can lead to the coverage of uninsured Americans. Her reasoning is simple: by combining managed care's price cutting strategies with Medicare and Medicaid payment changes, the gap between the haves and the have-nots has only widened. The U.S. voluntary health system, she argues, costs three times as much as a nationalized health insurance program would (Scott, pages 32-33, 1999).
A single-payer health insurance program would minimize administrative costs as well. The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) would influence health care companies to upgrade their systems to be as up-to-date as possible and with a uniform system, technology would be top notch. Universal health care, in her opinion, is easily ascertainable by combining costs now and redistributing the wealth equally (Scott, pages 32-33, 1999).
Other people and organizations are vehemently against a nationalized health system. Michael Tanner of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation is one of those people. In universal health coverage, he argued, every person would be issued a national health card. Doctors would be reliant on what the government decided to pay them. Federal and state budgets would forever be changed due to the enormous addition of health coverage for every American. The Russo-Wellstone health care reform bill from 1992 would require employers and the self-employed to pay a tax equal to 7.5 percent of wages. Instead of 50 percent, social security benefits would be taxed at 85 percent. Also, the elderly would be charged a $55 monthly fee for long term care.
