THE PUBLIC OPTION? a political solution or another boner?
Posted by politicalpartypooper on June 9, 2009
So you want to design a national health care plan? Where would you begin? If you were a Republican or a Democrat, the first place you’d start would be finding ways to ensure that your largest contributors, the Health Insurer’s lobby, are not left without a seat at the table. Next, you’d enlist the help of the President of the United States of America to make a statement designed to put those contributors at ease. After all, with the midterm election cycle starting in the next nine months, now is no time to be turning your back on so much money.
And so we have seen, in the last two weeks, that members of both parties are arguing the merits of a “Public Option”, which seems more like mandated tax subsidies that would be paid directly to health insurers, who would then be hired, with all of their profit making expertise, to administer the national health plan. That sounds logical, right?
What is this “Public Option”? So far, the idea being bandied about is being called a “choice”. Where have we heard that, before? This “choice” would give Americans the right to opt into a publicly funded health care plan that is similar to the ones that individual states utilize for their employees. On the face, this looks like a sweet deal for individual Americans, and sounds like a smart option for a government provisioned premium plan.
But beneath the surface lies this ugly truth: Any plan that involves health insurers will also necessarily involve their high premium composition, their customer non-service infrastructure, and of course, their ten to fifteen percent profit for providing an administration system that is approximately thirty to forty percent inefficient. What does it all add up to? A National Health Care Plan that costs fifteen to thirty percent more than it should.
This is being proposed, my friends, during a time when we are running record budget deficits, and mortgaging our freedom to China. Wouldn’t it make better sense to eliminate the insurers altogether? Wouldn’t a single-payer system with a single administrationinfrastructure be less expensive? Wouldn’t it be nice to not have to jump through hoops every time you have a claim that needs to be paid? Am I missing something?
What do you think? Is this a good plan?
Jonathan Blaque said
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/outlawing_private_insurance_is_the_new_obama_birth_certificate
Connecticut Man1 said
I am not sure you get the “public option”. It is simply a nation wide not-for-profit plan that would be funded by the people that join it. (or that is what was as originally proposed in the “Hacker Plan”)
“This “choice” would give Americans the right to opt into a publicly funded health care plan that is similar to the ones that individual states utilize for their employees.”
You are confusing it with state exchanges that would include private plans and the public option. In the same way that FEBHP is run for the federal government, except it would add a public option not-for-profit plan as an added choice.
As for the rest on a single payer plan? Yes, it would be simpler, cheaper and the best way to go. I lived in Canada for about 20 years and the quality of the healthcare provided by Doctors and hospitals up there is just as good as here. The only differences? It costs less to cover everyone and nobody ever goes bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare.