The Public Option.
These three words have created a tremendous uproar in the United States from all sides and corners of the political spectrum, from supports to neigh sayers. One side claims it is socialism the other side claiming it is a needed and welcome change to the US health care policy. But what it is exactly, I don’t think that is a question too many people are sure of.
For the neigh sayers it is nothing more than European style socialism, bring the government into our lives even further by forcing us to use their health care (many mocking the name Public “Option”).
For the supporters it is a needed change, a breath of fresh air that will relieve the burden what they view as the current health care situation in the United States, that is, a shameful nightmare.
After listening to an interview with Jacob Hacker (the so called “father of the public option”) it inspired me to do a little bit of research which has led me to two questions…
Can the public option really be called socialism?
Is the public option really going to save the US?
The public option boils down to this:
You do not have insurance or you are under-insured. You turn to the government for help. They give you a brochure, in this brochure is a list of all of the insurance plans available to you complete with premiums, copays, doctor access etc… A basic outline of what the different plans offer. The plans listed in this brochure would include private (regulated) insurance plans from all the major players as well as the public option. As the “consumer” in this instance it is up to you to decide which plan looks most appealing to you, maybe you’ll pay a higher premium to get a lower copay, maybe only one has a hospital you really like etc… This does not mean that you have to or will even want to use the plan that the government provided for you. So if you aren’t forced to take the plan, what would the point be?
The point is simply competition, the life blood of capitalism. The idea is that the government could provide very competitive rates to the private insurance companies as medicare (also government ran) has traditionally had considerably lower overhead costs which account for a significant portion of overall costs for private insurance companies. So the idea here would is that it would finally give private insurance companies an incentive to lower their costs and in the end provide cheaper healthcare than is currently present whether you are using public or private, profit or non-profit healthcare.
So that answers the first question, can the public option be called Socialism, as a solid no.
I believe many people are thinking of “single payer healthcare” or “medicare for all” when they are thinking of socialist health care policies as these are much more similar to what countries such as the UK, Canada and many other European nations have.
So on to the second question, can it really save people from the United State’s healthcare “nightmare?”
Obviously Jacob Hacker is a much smarter man than I am and he firmly believes that the answer to this question is yes. I am not so convinced (though to be fair I am not entirely opposed to the notion either). It seems to me that the plan could ultimately have an effect on the costs of healthcare but I am left wondering if the effect would be that great. I am at a loss to understand how this would be more effective than simple regulation of the insurance companies (no denial based on pre-existing conditions, no sudden policy cuts) and a slight expansion of medicare. While obviously the notion of having a safety net of health insurance for people to fall on is an appealing one I have a hard time imaging this causing massive changes in the current atmosphere of competition.
A bill at the hospital can only be so little, they need to cover all of their costs like any other business and can only have prices that are so low. Some of these high prices are caused by unavoidable things, such as the cost of using an x-ray machine while some of these costs seem much more subjective, like the wage of a doctor (not to say that doctors do not deserve adequate compensation for the vital service they provide) or the cost of certain medications. Beyond that, insurance companies are expected to maintain heft advertising budgets as well as have a large ensemble of lobbyists in Washington and these things to not come cheaply.
After some brief research I have come to an unusual conclusion. The public option should be supported by those who do not support it and should be called “not enough” by those who do support it. It seems much more in favor of capitalistic ideals (which is not a personal condemnation) and much less in favor of the notion of providing healthcare for all (something that would be achieved through semi independent legislation anyway).
Post a Comment