The Huffington Post
Posted: June 11, 2009 07:00 AM
I'm not a healthcare wonk. Of course, I want the 46 million uninsured Americans to get coverage, but they have not been my primary concern in healthcare reform (even though I have been among the uninsured many times in my life). I have to admit I'm being a bit selfish here because I mainly want to have less expensive health insurance that still gives me decent coverage. (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Why? Because these healthcare costs are killing us. It significantly impacts our family's life. We're just like everyone else, getting crushed under these bills. And what drives me crazy is that after paying more than any other country in the world, we get the 37th best coverage. That's unacceptable. We need to change this system.
This is why I'm in favor of the public option. I need lower bills. Republicans are saying that the public option is unacceptable because it will be too cheap and too efficient, so private companies cannot keep up with it. Great!
Mitch McConnell literally said this weekend on Fox, "The private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option." Doesn't this prove that the private insurance companies will not be able to do as good a job as the government? Then step aside, Butch.
Here are four indisputable reasons why the public option must be part of the healthcare proposal:
2. The government will not take a profit. That is about 10-30% of costs wiped out immediately. Private companies by their nature will add a certain percentage to the product for their own profit. That comes directly out of our pocket. An option that doesn't take profit also doesn't take as much money from us.
3. The government will have enormous negotiating leverage with drug companies and health care providers, so they can drive down the costs to the consumer even more.
4. It is an option! If it turns out that the government option does not work as well or costs more, no problem, just use the private insurance you have now. This is only an option you have in a more competitive market. Who can argue with that?
There are legitimate concerns that progressives have with the public option. It is not single payer. The government does not pick up the tab. You still have to pay a premium and the current system is largely maintained. But I think this is better than single payer. It gives us a choice and allows the market to dictate which system works better in the healthcare industry - public or private.
If in the end, more people choose the public option, then obviously it worked. If they don't, we've lost nothing because they can still get private insurance.
Another important point to remember is that the doctors, drug companies and medical providers are still private entities. They can compete with one another for more business by producing better products or making them cheaper. The base of healthcare services is still the same. It's just how you pay for it that would change a little.
And no one is getting between you and your doctor (unless it's your current provider who won't let you go out of network). You can pick any doctor you like under the public option; you just pay him from your public insurance rather than your private insurance. And it costs less. So, where's the harm?
Well, some would argue that the costs of the public option might be more than we realize. For example, the government will cover pre-existing conditions, and that could add to the costs of the plan. No problem, if you can find a better private plan, take it! If you want to add on to the coverage the public plan gives you, do it! Nobody is stopping you from getting more or different coverage from a private insurance company.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).