Health Care Reform Needs a Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-mcentee/health-care-reform-needs_b_153341.html

Gerald McEntee

President of the 1.4 Million-Member AFSCME Union

Posted December 24, 2008

Our broken health care system hurts everyone. Health insurance premiums are going up three times faster than pay, with many working families shouldering a growing share of those costs. They are paying more and getting less -- while being forced to fight with insurance companies to get the care they need and get their bills paid.

During the presidential campaign, President-elect Barack Obama spoke powerfully about the crisis. During his second debate with John McCain, he made it personal: "In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay for her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

America needs to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all. Americans recognize that real reform must include a public plan as an option for families looking for health care that meets their needs, so that they are not at the mercy of insurance companies. A new report, released by the Institute for America's Future and the University of California Berkeley School of Law's Center on Health, Economic & Family Security, demonstrates that a public insurance option is vital to guaranteeing quality, affordable health care to all. The study finds that a public health insurance plan that competes directly with private insurers is essential to controlling health care costs, potentially saving the nation $1 trillion over ten years and improving the quality of care.

Per the study: Medicare, a public plan that most Americans appreciate, "already shows unique quality advantages over private insurance when it comes to reliable patient access to affordable care." Because of Medicare, seniors are "half as likely as non-elderly Americans with employment-based insurance to report common access problems, such as skipping a medical test, treatment, or follow up, and failing to see a doctor when sick."

Jacob Hacker, PhD, the report's author, provides vital new information that shows how a public plan can maintain lower costs while providing broad, guaranteed and quality coverage. "Premiums with a public plan cost about three-quarters the amount private insurers charge for the same set of benefits," says Hacker. "It's an essential element to any national health care reform proposal."

Hacker documents the good track record of public plans at reining in costs, while preserving access to care. In addition, public plans have pioneered key quality and payment innovations that have often set the standard for private plans. Just as important, he points out, public plans set a standard against which private plans must compete to drive value and can be a source of stability for people.

FULL story at link.

Private fire departments competing with public ones is seriously stupid. Same for private health insurance, for the same reason.

Doing it this way undermines some of the insurance company rhetoric about "free choice" etc. by leaving a private option for those who want it.

How can Harry and Louise whine about the dangers of forcing people into "socialized medicine" when nobody is being forced into anything? Even if corporate PR convinces some people to stay with the private option at first, over time people will see the efficiency and effectiveness of the public option.

People will still have free choice but, over time, more and more will choose the public plan.

Allowing people a private option is allowing them to withhold health care from sick people.

I support single payer and I don't necessarily advocate doing it the way the OP says, but I can see where it might be a viable path to get there.

Whether or not it under funds the public system depends on how you do it.

No private insurers, period. They steal money from the total health care dollar pool and waste it in CEOs, profits, and administrative nonsense. That is money that becomes unavailable for use taking care of actual sick people.

I understand all of the problems with private insurers, you don't need to list them for me. We're on the same side here.

They've CAUSED the problems. They need to be cut OUT of health care, like the cancerous growth they are.

not CEO salaries or shareholder dividends!

It's nowhere near the ideal. Seniors usually have to purchase supplemental insurance to cover everything Medicare doesn't cover and often they spend as much as they might have pre-Medicare eligibility for coverage. We need 100% access for everyone, present a card - no bills, with the tab paid by tax revenues out of the general fund. Oh . . . the horror of it all . . . taxes might have to go up a little to keep everyone healthy and productive.