10 Reasons We Need a Public Option

It has become increasingly clear that the president and the Democratic Party have done a poor job of articulating why we need a public option in the next health care bill. The Republicans and centrist Democrats have successfully managed to dictate the terms of debate, casting the push for a public insurance option as an obsession of the far Left. Progressives will have to fight very hard to keep any form of the public option included in the final health care package, and its strength will be determined by the Left's ability to pressure Obama.

Real health care reform cannot happen without a public option, and we need a constant reminder of exactly what we are fighting for. Here are the top 10 reasons why there must be a public insurance option:

1. Passing health care reform with a public option means millions of currently uninsured people will get access to comprehensive coverage at an affordable rate.
2. A public option will force private insurance companies to compete with the power of the government. Prices will come down, and they will no longer be able to charge insane premiums or deny coverage.
3. A public option gives power to consumers who can walk away from insurance companies that do not pay out, deny coverage, or excessively increase their premiums.
4. It will give Americans a sense of ownership of health care. It will no longer be a privilege of the rich, but an affordable part of everyone's life and a comfort in times of crisis.
5. With a public option, drug prices will come down due to the government's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.
6. It will prevent people from going bankrupt because of excessive medical bills. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, "62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance."
7. A public plan will have significantly lower overheads than a private plan. The government won't need to market their plan, and they don't need to make a profit from it. Therefore, the the consumer reaps the savings.
8. It will save small businesses huge amounts of money and allow them to raise wages, increase vacation time and take better care of their employees.
9. After a few years, it will prove Republicans totally and utterly wrong about socialized medical care.
10. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin will have very visible and hilarious meltdowns.

    
    What could be better than that?

Ben Cohen is the Editor of TheDailyBanter.com and founder of BanterMediaGroup.com

Follow Ben Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thedailybanter

Comments

[alwqb]

The Insurance Industry is in the business of denying care, period. If you think you have great health insurance, you haven't used it lately.

My co-pay for Blue Shield went up from $10 to $25 last year. I was denied an anesthesiologist for neck epidurals. Tests and biopsies were performed for a skin condition with no diagnosis, now having to pay out of pocket for lab tests. Because of misinformation and non diligence, my insurance won't pay for my prescriptions until they find out if a 3rd party can be blamed. I have had two neck surgeries in 6 years and I get a 3rd party form to fill out because date of injury and date of visit was mistaken as the same? If everything was electronic I wouldn't get 10 forms each month stating the stage of my bills and they would have the pertinent information to bypass human error.

But the health insurance industry likes business this way. Charge them more, make the paperwork enormous, and deny procedures. It's all a racket.

[BocaMom]

Excellent story! WIthout a public option, we have no healthcare reform. And I will not support any Congressman who doesn't support it!

[ajwriter]

Some things you didn't consider:
1) The public option leaves too many systemic failures in place (read Dr. David Himmelstein in that regard). The $450 billion wasted annually on administrative costs will either be unchanged or even go up.
2) It further privatizes profits while socializing risk.
3) If the insurance industry does end up "competing" with the government, they will only find a way to corrupt whatever agency is in charge or otherwise work the system to their favor. We have a pretty big "public option" right now, Medicare, which isn't making a dent in the huge and insatiable costs the insurance industry foists on us to extract their profits.
4) State and federal governments already don't have the guts to enforce existing insurance regulations. More regulations will not solve the problem.
5) If you think the rancor is bad now, what do you think will happen if such reform passes? The insurance industry won't stop fighting til they have their advantage back.

Real conservatives would do better to let dems pass a single-payer -- which, once we are free of the overwhelming influence of a corrupt and powerful insurance industry, could more easily be improved with ideas that actually resonate with Republican ideals (the non-whacko ones). They could be real heros, swooping in with those improvements and take credit for the whole thing. Too bad they're in thrall to the wingnuts.

[Willow712]

Medicare is a public option only for those over 65. We need a public option (MEDICARE-LIKE), for everyone. My employer pays over 600 dollars a month for my health care, I pay over 200. I would love to have medicare available for everyone.

[floridafun]

yes the public option goes far enough. a private single payer is a decent choice on the menu of options. if you want that, take it. i and many others want public option. you get what you want, i get what i want, win win. why rule out public because you dont wish to choose to sign up for it?

[santaklaus]

I´m afraid you are wrong. I´ll explain why a public option makes no economical sense at all.

Imagine you run a private insurance corporation. Who do you want to have as your customers? Answer: the young, rich and healthy. They will pay the premiums reliably, but hardly ever need a doctor. You will offer them a better deal than the public option does and still make a huge profit. Who do you not want to have as your customers? The old, poor and sick. They can´t pay much and will be expensive for you. You will leave them no other choice than the public "option".

Result: private insurance corporations will still make a huge profit with their young, rich and healthy customers. Healthcare for the rest will be paid from the federal budget.

There is simply no reasonable middle ground between "totally private" and "single payer". The middle ground´s name is "privatized profits and nationalized losses".

[jpm005]

The public option doesn't go far enough. I believe that single-payer reform is the standard against which other health reforms should be measured. Sound single payer proposals have been introduced in both the House of Representatives (H.R. 676, The U.S National Health Care Act) and the Senate (S. 703, The American Health Security Act of 2009).

Single payer reform, as embodied in these bills, would eliminate the bewildering patchwork of private insurance plans with their exorbitant overhead and profits, as well as the costly paperwork burdens they impose on providers. These savings on bureaucracy - nearly $400 billion annually – are sufficient to cover all of the uninsured and to provide first dollar coverage for all Americans. No other approach can provide comparable coverage at a cost our nation can afford.

Neither a public plan nor an insurance exchange will do anything to mitigate the damage of a reform that perpetuates private insurers’ dominant role. Even a robust public option would forego 90% of the bureaucratic savings achievable under single payer.

We currently enjoy a single payer system in Medicare. This system is not only familiar to every American but has effectively provided medical care to millions of citizens. This is the plan that should be provided to all Americans.

Finally, we need to work toward revocation of the parts of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that prevents Medicare from entering into negotiations with drug manufacturers for reasonable prices on prescriptions.

[santaklaus]

Exactly my opinion. I have no idea what America is afraid of. I live in Austria, a single-payer country. Everybody pays 3.82% of the salary into the universal health insurance. There´s no fuss about pre-existing conditions, you never pay anything to see a doctor, no silly paperwork, just an excellent healtcare system I never had a reason to complain about.

[pfrogger]

thank you for your kindness. but have you read about America these days. the special interests own the place. the politicians are lobbied, ie. bribed, by the special interests, and the people are woefully ignorant, ie. they think single payer is evil socialism that will steal their liberty.
that's what we're dealing with. any questions?

[pfrogger]

AGREED!!!
but this is America, and many will vote against or protest against their own self interest.

even in Canada, with a single payer system, it was initially started in one province and then adopted federally.
Kucinich put an amendment in one of the house bills that allows states to try their own single payer.
frankly I'm shocked that this country did even that.
America has a propensity for being the slowest kid on the block. let's give the slow kid time. even if I agree with you 100%. because these people, ie. the imbeciles, and the insurance companies, ie. the vampires, and the politicians, ie. bought corporate shills, won't allow what's best for the American people, ie. single payer.

[tiredlady]

My call, all day, everyday- One group, one plan ,one payer!

[bannorhill]

6) In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most. To fix this require insurance companies to continue insurance at no charge (except standard deductables) if the employee has to take time off due to illness.

7) With the plan costing taxpayers $239 Billion in year ten NO ONE reaps savings.

8) The small business savings will be paid for by taxpayers.

9) Should we pass a bill just to prove the opposition is wrong? What happens when they are proven completely right.

10) Lets spend $1,000,000,000,000 of tax payer money so you can laugh at someone. That is no joke.

[tdwilley]

How to pay for a strong public option.
1. A mil tax on toxics. When the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed in 1976, EPA grandfathered in 63,000 chemicals whose safety and efficacy have never been proved. A 0.1% tax on the sale or transfers of these chemicals would hardly be an unbearable burden on a $400 Billion industry and would demonstrate our ability to stop taxing what we like (read employment) and start taxing what we don’t like (toxics in the environment). This would generate between $300 and $400 million dollars per year.
2. A mil tax on derivatives and other financial “instruments”. Speculators buy $500 trillion of securities derivatives each year and don’t pay one penny. A mere 1/10 of 1 percent sales tax on purchases of these derivatives would raise $500 billion per year.
3. Stop wasting a $1 million PER HOUR in Iraq. From Tom Hayden on the left to Ron Paul on the right those with insight can see that we would have plenty of revenue for universal health coverage if we weren’t prosecuting unnecessary wars every decade.

[bannorhill]

1) The plan in congress will cost taxpayers $236 Billion in year 10 of operation (from the CBO). It will cover 18 million people. That is over $13,000 PER PERSON or $52,000 to insure a family of four. It may be affordable for the insured but not for taxpayers.

2) There are over 1200 insurance companies now competing for customers. If people were allowed portability the competition would be greater.

3) Portability would give power to consumers who can walk away from insurance companies that do not pay out, deny coverage, or excessively increase their premiums.

4) Being able to decide for yourself (portability) on your insurance would give ownership.

5) Presiden Obama already eliminated the government's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

[jpm005]

Limiting the government's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies was not an Obama action. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 signed by President Bush included provisions that prevent Medicare from negotiating drug prices. This is the primary reason that Medicare costs are so high.

The Veterans Administration is allowed to negotiate with drug companies as are the plans offered to Senators, Congressmen, and federal employees.

[bannorhill]

Then why did Obama have to have the secret meetings with the drug companies?

[tiredlady]

Where do you think that the current payments to insurance companies will go? A smaller share of the money currently used for premiums can be paid to the government for single-payer, and you will not have the "high costs" everyone is yapping about. I don't know why everyone acts like the premiums insured people already pay are just going to evaporate because insurance companies won't be getting them. YOU pay into single-payer, just like everyone on Medicare does. If you want extra coverage, go nuts and pay an insurance company for a added coverage- just like Medicare Advantage. If your employer (for those lucky enough to have employer-paid benefits) isn't giving a fortune to some insurance company, maybe they will give more to you- and you can decide how to spend it. Voila, that "liberty" the Beckites are yapping about. Your insurance belongs to you, and not some job you could lose, or wish you could change.

[Steamboater]

What's omitted from this is what a public option will cover for those who presently have no heath insurance. Doesn't anyone care enough to even ask that question? Labels are only as good as their contents.

[shothot]

If you have no insurance, the only way you can go is up. KISS

[Symo]

"With a public option, drug prices will come down due to the government's ability to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies."

No, it means that private pharmaceutical firms will charge MORE to the government to pay for the drugs. 400 dollar hammers, people. Then, they pass the "savings" onto us.

[pfrogger]

well said.
sure Canada did effectively bargain with the insurance companies so that price was kept down, versus your ridiculous 400 dollar hammer story. but they somehow bargained with them and got a great deal.
but we're not as good as Canadians. everyone knows that.

[Steamboater]

And Obama has already caved into the pharma compainies by refusing to allow imports of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

[CVN65]

#7. Lower overheads for a govt. program vs a private program? hahahahahaha Right. Because that is what we always see with govt-better service at a better price, efficiency, concern for costs, customer service. That's why nobody ever wants govt. jobs- you have to work too hard for low wages and crappy benefits, not to mention the miserable retirement packages. What a maroon! This was a spoof, right?

[pfrogger]

you mean those govt jobs that providing affordable healthcare that can't be rationed or denied?
or the one with a guaranteed pension unlike the 401ks that were decimated due to the stock market?
lower wages than the private sector, sure. but how many of those in the private sector were laid off due to cutbacks, ie. not their fault. how many of the govt folks were let go? none.

private sector more stable? did you witness the "beauty" of the private sector that almost collapsed but had to be bailed out by the taxpayer, ie. public?
private sector at a better price? than why do govt employees with federal healthcare or Medicare have no rationing, less price, and no refusal of coverage like the private sector? oh yeah, and they're cheaper.

did I mention how your "free market" almost destroyed the financial system, and that the PUBLIC taxpayer had to bail them out? did I mention how all the private sector crawled on their hands and knees to the federal government, ie. public, to ask for a handout? isn't that corporate welfare? yes, I believe it is.
do you have any actual facts, or just ideology that you'll keep repeating no matter how wrong and disastrous it is.

[mergina]

10 reasons? I can think of about 200 million reasons.

[artemrss]

Did you know that our congressmen and senators, as well as federal employees, get to choose between 111 different plans, and 256 different plan options? They are covered from the first day on the job, as well as their spouses and dependents, and it is carried throughout their lifetime (retirement). Pre-existing conditions are waived. Itis subsidized by the federal goverment, it is federally funded from 72% to 75% of their monthly premium. Federal employees, congressmen and senators pay out of pocket about 1/3 of the true monthly premium cost; the rest of the bill we pay for. Our tax dollars are paying for 3/4th of their monthly premium each and every month, including for their spouses, dependents, and through their retirement. If this isn't a public option, what is? Many taxpayers can't afford their own health insurance, how dare they deny us a public option when we are subsidizing theirs each and every month. We look to them for wisdom and instead they stab us in the back (better have health insurance, ha!) Worst of all, they deliberately lie, misinform, twist, and divert attention. Hey, they want those lobbyist dollars from drug and insurance companies to keep coming in. Wake up, America. By believing the opponents of President Obama's health insurance reform, we are going to defeat what is in our best interest. We are shooting ourselves in the foot (better have health insurance, ha!)

[unionave]

There are 40 million government workers through out the country that have health care paid for by tax payers to private insurers . If just 1/2 of these governments could have their employees insured by Medicare their tax payers would save billions .

[WinterParkMom]

The basis for any public option should be:
Coverage for EVERYONE who applies
Structured premium payments of not more than 100 per individual, 300 per family
Deductibles capped at $2000 and based on income (means testing every year like the va)
No mandates forcing people to purchase insurance (a windfall for private carriers)
No triggers (also a windfall to private carriers)
No subsidies to private insurance carriers
No taxes on employer provided benefits
If someone has private insurance and wants the public option, they can drop private with no problem and be covered immediately under public.
No mandates on employers to buy into the public option to cover employees. Has to be free choice.
Everyone with coverage gets treated for new or pre-existing conditions.
Fairly negotiated reimbursement to private pracitce, specialty doctors and hospitals
Fairly negotiated prices for medications, even on name brand stuff which has no generic equivalent.
AND IT HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Within 1 month of the above bill passing, Americans must be able to start buying in and using it.
It must be administered by an autonomous federal agency. Monies paid in must not be co-mingled with any other money, does not go into the general fund so it can be looted.
The ONLY payouts from this fund will be for: payments to practicioners, pharmacies and admin. In 5 years if we see significan overages, those overages will be used to suplement medicare and fund medical research.
See my next post on funding

[WinterParkMom]

47 million un insured
20 million under insured
Subtract 10 million poor/indig­ent/mental­ly ill, etc, who are uninsured and will have to get free care = 37 mill un-insured who can pay.
18.5 million can pay $50/mo = 925,000,000
18.5 mill can pay $100 = $1,850,000,000
20 mill under insured will switch and can pay $100 = 2,000,000,000
That is a grand total of $4,775,000,000
That is FOUR BILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN PREMIUM PAYMENTS PER MONTH. FIFTY SEVEN BILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PER YEAR IN PREMIUMS FOR ONE SET OF PEOPLE.
That does'nt count the millions who'll switch from private companies if they can pay $100 or 200 per month and have their entire family covered even with pre-existing conditions. Repeal bush tax cuts asap another 700 billion.
After thinking about it more, institute a 1 penny federal sales tax on EVERY item. I can hear the opponents shouting about making the poor poorer, but my statement is 1 cent on each item NOT on every dollar or hundred dollars. From candy bars to big screen tv's to your house. 1 cent on everything. If your grocery bill was $100. for 53 items, your bill would be $100.53. That's not putting people in the poorhouse especially when we've been dealing with price increases. Also, if you're saving 300-500 per month on insurance, you have that money to spend and put back in the economy, save, or invest.

[hunt49]

Even the way you frame it, that penny tax is incredibly regressive. That's a penny on a $.25 can of off-brand tuna, and a penny on a Ferrari. Which one is going to be used to feed a hungry kid at home? Which one is a larger percentage of the spender's income, or even weekly food budget?

[pfrogger]

I disagree.
I think the penny tax is genius.

where are you getting $.25 tuna? I need to shop there. and even then, it's one penny!!!
it is a drop in a bucket that together can raise revenues for an important and fundamentally important goal: healthcare.
I'm happy to pay a penny and I think most people would be too.
It may be regressive. But it causes no harm, and helps tremendously.

[dadw5boys]

Number 11 : As long as the USA is in control of the Central Banking System it is VITAL that the American People have laws passed the protect all Americans because the Central Bankers will own everything in the end unless we cas break their hold of our government. Untill we do break that hold we must help all Americans survive to fight another day against them or we become salves in out own country. Economic Slavery is real people!!!!!