Conservatives: "Public Health Care Option Is The Best, But You Can't Have It"

The conservative mantra, for as far back as anyone can recall, is that the government can do no right, and the private sector can do no wrong, thanks to market principles of competition. "Government isn't the solution to our problem - Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan.

Well, that notion has been destroyed when it comes to health insurance.

The leading argument from conservative Republicans and Democrats is that if there is a public option included in any health insurance reform package, it will doom the private industry because it simply will not be able to compete with the government-managed plan.

From Fox News Sunday

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about what seems to be part of their plan, although I think we'd both agree that it's not very specific at this point. The president says that he wants a public health insurance option...

MCCONNELL: Yeah.

WALLACE: ... to compete against private insurance options. Is there any public plan, as just one of a series of -- on the menu, that you could support?

MCCONNELL: Well, that would mean a government plan that would inevitably put the government between you and your doctor, and there would be no more private insurance.

WALLACE: Why?

MCCONNELL: Because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option.

Whoa! Stop the presses! The Republican leader not only admits that the government can offer a better health insurance option than private industry, but that the principles of competition will go out the window -- that private insurance companies won't do everything they can to offer Americans the best and least inexpensive insurance possible? What happened to private insurance companies being able to do everything better and cheaper than the government? Apparently, according to the Republican leader, they cannot.

Like I said, conservative Democrats are saying the same. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has been all over the place, but at one point said a public option "would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans."

Well, duh. Sure it would, if the private insurance companies continue to refuse people quality coverage at competitive prices.

At the end of the day, though, conservatives have made a fatal error, which progressives and the President have yet to really capitalize on. With conservatives settling on the argument that private insurance wouldn't be as good as a public option, they've given away the argument that the government-managed plan would be a bureaucratic, inefficient, sub-standard plan that would rob people of decent health insurance.

They've said, essentially, that a public, government-managed option would probably be the best option for Americans, but they want to deny it to them, without making a case as to why people should be refused the best.

If progressives really start to hammer that point home, it will be enough to make people sick (pun intended) of the farce conservatives want to make of the health care debate.

Comments

[BTideal]

Overall, I am uneasy with the idea that some people in the United States have something against developing a national health insurance plan. I ask why not? I mean, most other developed countries offer some sort of plan. I asked this question once in college. My professor answered me that we didn't have the money to spend on it; as a nation the USA pours too much money into defense.

Others might argue some type of public option will ruin our free market, at least where it concerns health insurance. Well if medical costs and insurance premiums don't quit escalating at unreasonable rate, I say the government should step in and do something. Someone mentioned that paying $12,000 a year as privileged. Well yes, people who can pay for good insurance are privileged. People that need care the most because of poor socioeconomic status usually don't have the proper insurance for the proper treatment. Therefore they wait until it is an emergency, go to the ER, wait in a waiting room, and are unable to pay the bills they incur.

So why not change things? I know nothing can be ideal. It would be a lot of work. But hey, check out http://bedeb32soapbox.blogspot.com for an interesting post.

[jsgaetano]

This is really nothing new. The best option is always the complete opposite of what conservatives want.

[jmpurser]

Shockingly the GOP is in this case more honest than the Democrats. They're trumpeting their "Public Option" like it's health care reform instead of just another subsidy for the private health insurance industry.

[jsgaetano]

What you are talking about is the "public-private" plan proposed by conservatives.

[jpopphan]

"Because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option."

100% correct. Once a public health care system is established, there will be no need whatsoever for private insurers. There is no way that private, for-profit health insurance can ever compete with a government program. Hell, how many senior citizens out there are refusing Medicaid/Medicare and opting to pay for a private plan themselves?

A public healthcare system is the best way to go.

[UncleFire]

Sr's are NOT paying for Medicare/Medicade, the rest of us do. And on top of that, many have to get medigap (private) insurance.

About 27% of the population is covered by some form of gov. plan (military, medicaid, medicare, etc.). So roughly 77% of the population is subsidizing those on a gov. plan to SOME extent.

[countthevote]

Health care is our most important infrastructure and 18,000 people die due to lack of health care each year. Hospitals 100 years ago were places where people went to die with no hope of getting better but with expensive scientific advancements health care is more and more effictive if you can afford it.

Our manufacturing infrastructure is suffering because of our lack of health care infrastructure. We can't compete with countries who subsidize their citizens health care with a national plan.

Even our financial infrastructure is suffering from the weight of corporation run health care. Medical bills underlie 60% of bankruptcies. Republicans concern themselves with the Death Tax which only effects the top 2% wealthiest people. But because America does not have a comprehensive health care plan we collectively pay more and get less benefits than countries who are more reasonable and pragmatic.

Are we to just say that if you're rich you get the best our collective society has to offer but if you can't afford modern health care you leave nothing to your offspring because of your health care bankruptcy?

Scientific advancements made it necessary to pave roads and build bridges. It is a Federal responsibility written in the Constitution to build roads, to provide for defense and the general welfare of our citizens. The biggest terrorist we'll all face is disease. It is time to think of our health care as our national infrastructure.

A public health insurance option is necessary infrastructure in our technological advancing world.

[SoClearToMe]

Remember how the US auto industry fought against putting seat belts in its cars because it would make cars too expensive for consumers? Remember the industry's fight against air bags and better gas mileage? Would be detrimental to the auto industry! Yea yea yea, tell it to the judge.

Remember how we couldn't allow interracial interaction because, well, um, "Oh the Humanity!" Or interracial marriage because the children would be freaks. Yea yea yea, tell it to the judge.

Within the financial industry, we can't have rules and enforcement - it will stifle the whole economy! Yea, yea, yea.

Or we must have a War on Drugs so that, um, what was the reason? Yea yea yea.

They say we can't have a public health care plan because it will destroy the industry. Yea yea yea.

Jobs lost in the for-profit health care industry will be more than made up in jobs gained in the public plan. There would be an additional 46 million customers to serve.

There is a reason why Americans fare poorly compared to other industrialized nations in infant mortality, life expectancy, and diseases. Our health care industry needs this major overhaul.

And don't start with the government screws everything up. The government is made up of people. You hire qualified and competent workers with reasonable and stable funding and you get a quality product. Compare FEMA under Clinton and Bush (either one).

[bayside]

Give me the same free health care we provide our employees in congress..As long as we pay the bills we are going to get benefits ..New concept..

[lwfky]

Write your representatives and tell them that you expect them to give up their publicly funded insurance if they cannot offer the option to the American people. I contacted all of mine, along with Mary Landrieu, yesterday.

[sheila]

exactly. oh, and since congress doesn't actually work for us, they work only for special interests, they can start paying for their own insurance like we do.

We need a system of universal care with an optional private insurance upgrade like most socialist countries have, and like Medicare. "putting the government between you and your doctor" is no more horrifying than putting a corrupt profiteer between you and your doctor, so why is that somehow an acceptable option?

[UncleFire]

It is NOT free-- we all pay for it. That is of course, if you actually pay taxes.

[TheIndependenceParty]

It is the "profit" that exists in health insurance in America that is costing more than many families can afford. It is what drives American Healthcare to cost more than any healthcare system in the world. It is what is killing the "golden goose" that was the American Consumer. Single-Payor is all that will correct the downward spiral in availability and accessibility to health care in America.

If it fails, however, it will not be that the Republicans have taken the side of business over the American People, ... for they always do. It will be because politicians like Senator Landrieu will not get in line for what needs to be done to save healthcare in this nation. The Democrats, for better or worse, control the destiny of single-payor health care insurance in America!

[1differentdrummer]

It is the profit, okay, I agree, but it's also the distribution costs. Agents and brokers need to be paid, that's why they work for you. That's also what's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, the American consumer. When an employee's family coverage costs more than $1,000 a month how can anyone but the privileged afford it?

[UncleFire]

So being able to afford $12,000/yr in insurance makes one "previleged"?

[Aaror]

Profit is one leg of the high costs of the insurance industry (and not the largest either). As different drummer points out, the agents and brokers cost some too, but the huge cost is...
(wait for it)...
Denials of claims!!!
I worked in a hospital, and helped the billing department deal with insurance companies. The insurance companies hire armies of clerks to go over every line of the claim form in hopes of seeing an error that allows them to deny the claim, and the hospital has to have an army of clerks to appeal those denials.
If claims were accepted even with errors (insurance co calls hospital, clarifies, and fixes), cost would go down at least 25%!
But that would mean the insurance co's would pay more money in claims, and they don't want to do that, if they deny every claim, some folks give up and they save a lot of money!

Ask yourself why medical billing is the fastest growing field, and trained medical billers can set their own salary. Those folks are where the wasted 50% of our medical dollars are going.

[aofh]

Single payer would probably be much better and cheaper than our current system. The problem is that it wouldn't produce a profit which some people seem to think is the only way to measure success.

[UncleFire]

I don't understand why "profit" is such a dirty word. If ANY company does not profit, many of you (and me too) would not be employed.

Anyway, a single-payer/gov plan MUST run a profit (e.g. surplus) in order to build/hold reserves. It cannot be a zero sum game. Soc. Sec. and Medicare both run surpluses to fund trust funds. As we've heard numerous times, they face trillions in potentially unfunded liabilities even today. Medicare will soon (if not already) start paying out more than it takes in.

Any situation where someone is taking on potential liabilities IF something happens (i.e. any insurance scenario), there must be reserves (that is taken from "profit") in order to hedge against future payments.

[mamalisa38]

Yes, I would feel so sorry for those poor multi-millionaire Insurance CEO's.

[jonbw]

Senator Conrad as a "alternative" that will kill the public plan. He wants to create small regional non-profit private "co-ops" instead. The "co-ops" are nothing. It is not a compromise on the public option. It is a complete and total win for Republicans.

We Must Stop It Be It Gains Any Traction
http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/senator-conrad-is-trying-to-kill-public.html

[DRaymond]

All the people trying to tell scare stories about the government betting between them and their doctor, have any of them ever dealt with the pre-treatment approval process of their managed care provider? What on earth is that but some obstructionist paper pusher trying to get between you and the care you need?

Private industry has a right to be scared. Every country with universal care spends far less per person per year on health care than the US, and most have longer life expectancy and other health metrics too.

But this is an old song. Remember how the Detroit automakers fought higher mileage standards because it would put them out of business? They eventually gave in when it became obvious that meeting the 2020 mileage standards would be the least of their problems. They also fought air bags, saying the same thing until one German company decided to go ahead and make safety a selling point.

[booker52]

The government isn't going to get between the public and their choice of doctors. More fear from the right, that is all that is. If the government gives the public a choice I bet costs will go down.

[stateretiree]

Private insurers already do that, especially HMO's. They say what Doctors and Hospitals you can go to. They decide if you really need treatments or not. Fear, Fear, Fear, that is all Repubs know!

[UncleFire]

The gov. will certainly get involved (btw you and your Dr.)-- any coverage by any entity has rules that will need to be followed.

Yes, its a scare tactic. But its also reality.

[UncleFire]

I wish people would stop being so naive about this.

In a public plan the gov. will most certainly be between you and your doctor. ANY plan, public or private has stipulations on what they cover and what they don't. And if they DO cover something, there may be restrictions and/or co-pays. A care provider will most def. check with whomever will pay them to make sure they will get paid what is agreed upon.

Is it a scare tactic by conservatives? Sure, but its also reality.

[dumboldfarmer]

Bet you dollars to donuts that the health care industry will screw up any chances they have of true reform. This industry has ignored every complaint in the past and has figured out ways to circumvent any new rules or legislation. They are, well, obscenely greedy.

[jonbw]

Call your congressmen and let them know that you will not accept a bill without a public plan open to all. No trigger, no cripplying the public plan.

A public plan will save a family of four $2,500 a year.

Callforhea­lthcare.co­m

[BarryS]

no, 10-15000 pr year if you have individ policy. lets talk real numbers for once. How much will it cost per person per year? if it is 8K, we save 7k per year per person, etc. everyone is scare to tell the truth because the discussion will end with the obvious being the only choice.


soc sec costs about 7-8 k per year per person. so why cant care for healthier cohorts cost the same or less?