Spring Break
Editorial: Consequences of the 'public option'
Matt Zimmerman
Issue date: 6/18/09 Section: Opinions
At the heart of the proposed "American Health Choices Act" is the "public option." This gives every American the option of buying into a health care plan run by the federal government.
Ostensibly, this would provide competition and choice that would put downward pressure on the price of health care and improve quality of care.
While many recoil at insinuations that President Obama and the Democrats are pushing European-style socialism, this is precisely what they are doing.
Obama is quick to say that he does not want to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, that he wants to give consumers a choice, and that he wants to foster competition, but look at the consequences.
According to a study by the Lewin Group, the consequences of this plan would force 120 million Americans off their employer-provided health plans and into a government plan.
Rather than simply covering the elderly, disabled, and poor, this plan would extend government health care to all Americans. Because a taxpayer funded program will always be able to undercut any private plan, and considering the plan is funded by taxing private health care plans, this plan provides the perverse incentive for business to drop their employees into government-run plans.
Interestingly, this plan will only entice 28 million of the 49 million Americans without health insurance to purchase health insurance.
Rather than trying to help those who need help, the Democrats are taking advantage of the fact that they make the laws to distort the free market. It will make it impossible for the free market to compete and it will therefore force 100 million Americans into a health care plan in which the federal government inserts itself into the decisions that should be made between the patient and his or her doctor.
If this sounds far-fetched, just consider that Congress already keeps the prices 20-30% below the costs of private health care plans. Enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid are also currently bound by the federal government in what medicines and procedures that will be paid for and therefore, what health care they will receive. Also consider that the man Obama attempted to appoint as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, advocated the British policy of denying life-saving health care to the elderly in an attempt to save money.
Instead of attempting to help people without health insurance - a noble goal - the Democrats are using their majority in Congress to push an agenda that ignores the people without health insurance and instead attacks Americans who are happy with their health care plans, forcing them into government-run plans in which they will be a third party to the decisions that effect them.
This plan insures that those without health insurance will remain without health insurance, those that are happy with their health insurance will be forced into inferior plans, and the wealthy elite will still be the few able to purchase the best health care in the world.
Matt Zimmerman is a political science graduate student. He can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
Ostensibly, this would provide competition and choice that would put downward pressure on the price of health care and improve quality of care.
While many recoil at insinuations that President Obama and the Democrats are pushing European-style socialism, this is precisely what they are doing.
Obama is quick to say that he does not want to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, that he wants to give consumers a choice, and that he wants to foster competition, but look at the consequences.
According to a study by the Lewin Group, the consequences of this plan would force 120 million Americans off their employer-provided health plans and into a government plan.
Rather than simply covering the elderly, disabled, and poor, this plan would extend government health care to all Americans. Because a taxpayer funded program will always be able to undercut any private plan, and considering the plan is funded by taxing private health care plans, this plan provides the perverse incentive for business to drop their employees into government-run plans.
Interestingly, this plan will only entice 28 million of the 49 million Americans without health insurance to purchase health insurance.
Rather than trying to help those who need help, the Democrats are taking advantage of the fact that they make the laws to distort the free market. It will make it impossible for the free market to compete and it will therefore force 100 million Americans into a health care plan in which the federal government inserts itself into the decisions that should be made between the patient and his or her doctor.
If this sounds far-fetched, just consider that Congress already keeps the prices 20-30% below the costs of private health care plans. Enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid are also currently bound by the federal government in what medicines and procedures that will be paid for and therefore, what health care they will receive. Also consider that the man Obama attempted to appoint as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, advocated the British policy of denying life-saving health care to the elderly in an attempt to save money.
Instead of attempting to help people without health insurance - a noble goal - the Democrats are using their majority in Congress to push an agenda that ignores the people without health insurance and instead attacks Americans who are happy with their health care plans, forcing them into government-run plans in which they will be a third party to the decisions that effect them.
This plan insures that those without health insurance will remain without health insurance, those that are happy with their health insurance will be forced into inferior plans, and the wealthy elite will still be the few able to purchase the best health care in the world.
Matt Zimmerman is a political science graduate student. He can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
The Daily Eastern News encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. The DEN also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.
Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.
Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.
If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to our Online Editor at DENNews.com@gmail.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
Dave
posted 6/17/09 @ 11:59 PM CST
"According to a study by the Lewin Group, the consequences of this plan would force 120 million Americans off their employer-provided health plans and into a government plan. (Continued…)
Matt Zimmerman
posted 6/18/09 @ 11:36 AM CST
The 120 million figure comes from a plan that proposes that the government pays the rates they pay for Medicare and which does not prevent employers from dumping their employees into a government run plan. (Continued…)
Dave
posted 6/19/09 @ 8:28 AM CST
I don't think that the rates in the American Health Choices Act are the same as Medicare. The rates that have been proposed, according to factcheck.org, would be 10% higher than Medicare. (Continued…)
hsr0601
posted 6/20/09 @ 11:31 AM CST
I suppose some common sense and cool head can solve this cost problem.
As we know, the public option currently being discussed is modeled after Massachusetts Plan, under which about 97% of all Massachusetts residents are now covered. (Continued…)
ok
posted 7/05/09 @ 12:35 PM CST
The difference between this plan Massachusetts plan is that there was a MANDATE to buy health insurance in Mass. Of course the number of insured will be higher if the government is threatening higher taxes. (Continued…)
Mike Leon
posted 7/07/09 @ 5:46 PM CST
There is NO reason why Americans cannot have 100% free health. Taxes pay for libraries, schools, fire fighters, policemen, and military forces in Iraq. (Continued…)
all right
posted 7/07/09 @ 6:41 PM CST
Mike,
The government already regulates medicine. What do you think Medicare does when they say they will not pay for X medicine or Y procedure?
What do you think Obama means when he says he wants the government to make sure that doctors provide the best care not the most care? What do you think when Kathleen Sebelius say she wants to bring all doctors under federal standards?
It means they want the federal government to be inserted into the doctor-patient relationship in order to save money. (Continued…)
Mike Leon
posted 7/07/09 @ 8:07 PM CST
Anonymous poster,
Few million? Try almost 50 million. All those people pay out of pocket at the hospital, sometimes thousands of dollars. But hey, if you have full coverage you "love" that shouldn't be your problem, right? This is America and we supposedly look out for one another. (Continued…)
Anonymous Poster
posted 7/07/09 @ 9:39 PM CST
25% of the uninsured are already eligible for public assistance and choose not to take advantage of it
20% have family incomes of over $75,000 a year. (Continued…)
ts
posted 8/05/09 @ 9:46 AM CST
The Lewin report said a nonprofit/public insurance option would be MORE COST EFFECTIVE than forprofit/private insurance because it could negotiate discount rates for members (like medicare does) and admin costs would only be 13. (Continued…)
Post a Comment