Randy Shannon – 6/9/06

This page was last updated on June 13, 2006.

Single-payer system needed; Randy Shannon; Beaver County Times; June 9, 2006.

The last we heard from Mr. Shannon, he penned a letter to the editor entitled “The Times is a tool of the GOP,” and he was serious.

For background info about Mr. Shannon, see my notes on his speech of October 16, 2004, in front of the Beaver County Courthouse.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The May 16 editorial ‘Poor Health’ described the unbelievably poor condition of Americans’ health compared to citizens of other industrialized nations.”

[RWC] Please read my critique exposing this bogus editorial.

“It highlighted America’s terrible infant mortality rate, ranked near the bottom of the nations surveyed, and pointed out a peer-to-peer comparison of American and British middle-aged whites showed that we are much sicker. It also stated that 44 million Americans have no insurance coverage. And those who do are paying more for less.

“But the conclusions were misleading. It said, ‘The United States shows that money can’t buy quality medical coverage.’ It linked spending money on high-tech machines and drugs to the lack of coverage.”

[RWC] The editorial said nothing of the kind. Mr. Shannon apparently has reading comprehension issues, or is trying to deceive us.

“The truth about our health care disaster is simple. Only in the United States do private insurance companies control the administration of medical care for profit. This means the cost of writing a check for medical care is an extra 30 percent here while in other countries it is closer to 5 percent, and no higher than 15 percent. Our own Medicare system costs 4 percent to administer.”

[RWC] Liar, liar, pants on fire! Quite a few (most?) countries have private healthcare insurance industries even if they have a nationalized/socialized healthcare system. Canada and the U.K. are just two examples. In fact, Canada’s private healthcare industry is so successful Quebec tried to outlaw it. I covered this in my critique of “Poor health.”

Regarding administrative costs, I have a few points.

First, is our goal to provide the best healthcare for the most people or to minimize administration costs?

Second, socialized medicine proponents throw around cost figures like those cited by Mr. Shannon. I have been unable to corroborate them with any sources not promoting a nationalized healthcare system, however. It doesn’t mean the figures are wrong, just that I couldn’t confirm them. For what it’s worth, Blue Cross/Blue Shield reports its administration costs were 11% as of 2001.

Third, I don’t know the level of administrative costs that enables the optimum delivery of healthcare at the lowest overall cost. Here’s what I mean. If admin costs were close to zero, it’s fair to assume there would be tons of inappropriate and/or wasteful services provided due to a lack of oversight. It’s also fair to assume customer service would be non-existent. Likewise, too much money going to admin costs would result in higher prices and/or less money actually going to healthcare. I don’t know if the optimum is 4%, 30%, or somewhere in between. The bottom line is, low admin costs don’t assure quality healthcare.

“The insurance industry adds no value to the delivery of medical care. It is a vampire draining the lifeblood of America’s working people into the coffers of Wall Street banks.”

[RWC] If you’ve followed Mr. Shannon’s public comments, you know he is an anti-capitalist. Regardless of the industry – except government of course, it is a “vampire” in Mr. Shannon’s mind. Based on the aforementioned BC/BS report, the healthcare insurance “vampires” realized a profit of about 2.7% in 2001. If accurate, that’s considerably below average for industry in general.

You’ll note Mr. Shannon completely ignores the deleterious effect of government interference on the healthcare free market. To folks like Mr. Shannon, the “cure” for failed socialist programs is to eliminate the free market and throw more taxpayer dollars at the programs.

“There is a solution to this crime. The solution is HR 676, the ‘Expanded and Enhanced Medicare for All’ bill with 70 cosponsors in Congress. Enacting this bill would prove that the money we already spend can indeed buy quality medical coverage for every single person in America.”

[RWC] Actually, the official short title of H.R. 676 is “United States National Health Insurance Act.” You’ll note Mr. Shannon provided the sugarcoated alternative short title because he knows Americans tend to have an aversion to nationalized healthcare.

“A single-payer Medicare would reimburse all health-care providers. Individuals could choose any provider in the country with the assurance of receiving the highest quality standard of care. Everything, including nursing home care, is covered.”

[RWC] Note that Mr. Shannon calls his approach a “single-payer Medicare” instead of its real description, a taxpayer-funded, government-run healthcare system.

Our government can’t provide “healthcare” for our road system and our government-run schools have a ton of problems, yet Mr. Shannon wants us to believe government can provide “the highest quality standard of [health]care.” How gullible does Mr. Shannon believe we are?

“U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart is not a co-sponsor. Remember in November.”

[RWC] Here are some facts Mr. Shannon failed to note about the cosponsors.

First, a quick review of the list appears to show all cosponsors are Democrats and they tend to be the House’s most liberal reps and/or represent our most liberal states. There could be a few exceptions, though, because I didn’t take the time to check the party affiliation of all 70 cosponsors.

Second, only two PA representatives – both Democrats – cosponsored the bill. That’s only two of PA’s seven Democrat reps and of PA’s 14 total reps.