Jared Polis for Congress

By Jared Polis

Rocky Mountain News editorial pages editor Vincent Carroll recently criticized my proposal of a single-payer health-care system ("Polis' rationing plan," On Point, Feb. 1), suggesting it would result in the widespread rationing of care. Let me describe what in fact I am advocating.

First, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we have anything close to a "free market" in health care. A free market would allow the uninsured to die on the hospital doorstep rather than provide them treatment they cannot pay for. Having made a moral decision not to allow people in our great country to die in this fashion, let us discuss how to more efficiently provide for sensible universal health care.

America does not suffer from lack of total spending in health care.

We spend nearly twice as much per capita on health care as other Western nations, and yet our health outcomes are in the middle of the pack. One of the main drivers of cost are the estimated 50 million uninsured Americans, who are treated in the costliest manner with the worst health outcomes under our current system.

Generally, patients without insurance have little access to preventive care and are treated for everything from acute conditions to the flu in the most expensive way possible – in emergency rooms and hospitals that pass the costs onto insured consumers. It would be less expensive and more successful if patients were diagnosed and treated earlier.

Under my plan, supplemental or "gap" insurance would also exist, just as many Americans on Medicare today also have additional insurance in place. Many companies would offer additional coverage to attract and retain their employees, but, at the very least, every American would have a basic level of portable coverage including preventive care and catastrophic care.

The truth is that under the current health-care system, both Carroll and I have insurance, and under my proposed plan we would both likely continue to have good supplemental insurance, as would many readers of this who are far from "super-rich." The main difference is that there would be a basic level of universal, portable coverage that every American would enjoy and that would save costs.

Would this involve "rationing"? We have rationing within our health-care system today, whether it is private insurance or Medicare. Anyone who has had to fight a claim denial knows that. Any reform that reduces the administrative overhead and duplication in the system and encourages preventive care will free up resources that will result in less rationing, not more. By reducing administrative overhead and aggregating risk into a larger pool, we can achieve more efficiency out of a universal system that can, without magic spells or incantations, actually save money and lead to better health outcomes.