Dear Liberal Demise,
Thank you for your comments. I apologize for my tardiness in responding. You asked why I wanted a public option and why I saw it as a benefit and not a detriment.
Let me start with a little background. In the United States today there are quite a few public/government run health care/insurance programs. They include, but are not limited to, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program, other state and federal plans as well as plans that cover active duty military personnel and their families, that cover retired military personnel, that cover Senators and Representatives and that cover federal employees. The types of public plans are very broad and include plans like Medicare where the government reimburses private health care providers and plans where the health care providers are employees of the government as in the plans that cover active military personnel and their families and plans that cover retired military personnel. These plans are very popular with the people that they serve. Medicare gets better ratings than most employer sponsored plans (here). I have not heard of any member of Congress who is willing to give up her or his government run health care plan.
There are several reasons why I want a public option and why I view it
as a benefit.
First, the Congressional Budget Office has made it very clear that a robust public option like the one that was included in the House health care bill that passed, would save a lot of money (here). This issue like many others is not a simple one, but in the end, the public option would save money.
Second, the public option would provide some much needed competition to the for profit insurance industry. In many markets health insurance companies are able to raise their premiums a rates faster than their costs rise because they have market dominance. The AMA has concluded that in all but three metropolitan areas the health insurance markets are "highly concentrated". (here)
Third, a true public option would reduce the number of people who stay in their jobs because they either would not be able to get health insurance if they left or because they could not afford health insurance if they left. Consequently, people are staying in jobs they do not like, that are not optimal for them and that restrict their creativity. Here is an article that touches on this point. America's economy was built on entrepreneurs who had a new idea or who had a better way to do something or who just wanted to be their own bosses. These people create jobs and make our economy stronger. But without health care coverage we are placing a huge roadblock to them individually and thus to our economy as a whole. The availability of a robust public option would remove that road block and be a significant help to our economy.
I hope that this response answers your question.
Thanks for reading and commenting,
The Unabashed Liberal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for the post.
ReplyDeleteI promise you, I'm not attempting to be antagonistic just for the purpose of being antagonistic. Rather, I hope to have a meaningful discourse.
I hope you feel the same.
Okay, onto your points.
Medicare & Medicaid: Both are broken and well on their way to being bankrupt. Congress has to continually revise the programs' parameters just to extend them, and then the "fixes" ultimately only delay the inevitable; as the programs in their current forms are unsustainable. And, as far as Medicare getting better ratings, that doesn’t mean it’s a better program; that’s an apples vs oranges comparison (a subsidized program vs a non-subsidized – I’ll follow-up on this point later).
State-run children's programs: They are just that...individually state run. I would very much be interested to see how many of these programs are both functional & sustainable and to see if any of them could even serve as a viable model.
The military: How much choice do they have? Are they able to choose their own doctor? Are they allowed a 2nd opinion, if desired? What about elective procedures?
Congress: Since no member of Congress is willing to give up his/her plan, why not just offer the same plan to all Americans? If it’s good enough for them, why not the rest of the country also. Or, to turn the tables, if the plan that they're attempting to foist upon the public now is of such benefit, why don't Congressional members opt into it first and serve as test subjects?
(to be continued)
The CBO probably is correct about a public option driving and/or keeping premiums down, but only initially. Let me give you real world example of something I see happening in my industry right now. I work in compliance. The government, in its attempt to protect the “little guy,” enacts more and more regulations on my business. The cost of complying marginalizes my profit. It eventually reaches a point where the cost burden out weighs the profit benefit and I can no longer afford to offer the product or service. I finally decide to remove myself from the market. The consumer now has fewer choices and, because they do, my competitors can increase their charges (even with negotiated pricing, because there are now fewer businesses offering the product/service). This cycle continues to repeat until there are just a few providers (or possibly even a single provider) remaining (which also addresses your concern over market shares becoming increasingly concentrated).
ReplyDeleteThink about it. How would you like your industry to have to complete with a government-subsidized competitor? Especially, when that entity has the authority to change the rules. Let me put it this way: If your team were playing against your greatest rival, would you also want to compete against the umpires/referees at the same time? I wouldn’t think you would. By the same token, the government should NOT be in a position to directly compete with any business, in any industry, at any time. Their role should be limited to regulating monopolies at most and doing as little as possible to impede the open market and free-trade capitalism.
(to be continued)
I whole-heartedly agree with your statements: “America's economy was built on entrepreneurs who had a new idea or who had a better way to do something or who just wanted to be their own bosses. These people create jobs and make our economy stronger.” I also agree that not having health care coverage could be a deterrent, but that’s part of the risk-reward challenge that we all face.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are many, and more importantly, better solutions to health care issues than a government-mandated (and eventually government-controlled) program.
I look forward to addition comments/discussions. Maybe, between the two of us, we can arrive at some better options than what Congress is currently proposing.
Sincerely,
Liberal Demise
Dear Liberal Demise,
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of comments about your comments.
With respect to Medicare, it is going broke because of the way that Medicare is funded. With relatively fewer workers supporting relatively more retirees, the funding system used in the past is no longer appropriate. Medicare remains a very efficient way to deliver and pay for medical care and it gets great reviews from the people that it serves. It is a government run program.
While he was a Senator from Minnesota Mark Dayton proposed that Congress not get any better health care insurance than others in the country. His proposal was roundly rejected. I think it was a great idea. A more workable solution would be Medicare for all.
Our current health care insurance system is extremely inefficient and fails to produce good results. We spend several times more for health care in the United States than other industrialized countries, yet we rank 37th in terms of health outcomes according to the World Health Organization. Private markets do not result in good health care. We are the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care coverage.
There are many examples of private entities competing with government run entities, for example the postal service and the courier services and the public and private schools.
The Unabashed Liberal
Dear Unabashed,
ReplyDeleteI’m not convinced Medicare’s only problem lies in the way it’s funded; neither am I convinced that it “remains a very efficient way to deliver and pay for medical care.” As a matter of fact, your statements appear to be at odds. On the one hand, you admit the program is going broke; while on the other, you suggest it is effective. Your assertion that the program “gets great reviews” is moot. There are just as many private plans receiving high praise as evaluated by their respective clients; specifically, polls taken during the health care debate consistently indicated satisfaction rates of 80% and higher for privately insured individuals.
While I applaud Sen. Dayton’s proposal, it’s really not about Congress not getting any better insurance than the rest of America, rather it’s about every American having access to the very best health care. Contrary to your belief that “Medicare for all” being a “more workable solution,” Medicare for none would be the best solution. The Government, especially the Federal Government, has never administered a program as efficiently as individuals. The State does not know my individual or family’s needs. Consequently, they attempt to create a one-size fits all within a huge layer of bureaucracy, while private insurers seek to customize a plan tailored to suit me. Not only is this a much more efficient way of business, it affords me the freedom to select my own plan and to derive the benefits I believe to be most valuable, not what Government has deemed to be.
I can agree with you that there are indeed inefficiencies within “our current health care insurance system,” but I disagree that it “fails to produce good results.” I would like to see the criterion on which the WHO bases these statistics you’ve quoted. I would also point out it’s the “insurance system,” not the health care system where the majority of these inefficiencies lie. As such, why didn’t Congress do more to address the insurance system in the health care bill?
I adamantly disagree with your statement: “Private markets do not result in good health care.” Private markets THAT ARE HEAVILY REGULATED AND RESTRICTED do not result in good health care. Free markets are the best way to provide greater accessibility, cost-containment and over-all improvements to both the health care and insurance systems. Government works best when it imposes the least amount of regulations and restrictions on the free market. It is capitalism, not Government, my friend, that is the best and most “workable solution.”
And, to your statement: “We are the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care coverage,” I would say, “So what?” The US has, in many respects, chosen independent thinking and doing things differently than the rest of the world. To a vast degree, that independence is what has set us apart and made us a great nation. Additionally, your saying the US doesn’t have universal health care while others do sounds very much like the childish argument, “But, Mom, everyone else has one.”
I understand “there are many examples of private entities competing with government run entities.” I’m not denying their existence, but in which of those examples is there a benefit to the consumer? Under which of those examples would there not be a greater benefit if there were no subsidized competing entity?
-Liberal Demise