Health Care Reform: It Boils Down to Four Words

Next week, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on the public health insurance option. There will be two versions of it, one offered by Senator Rockefeller; the other by Senator Schumer. Regardless of the outcome, health care reform today comes down to four simple, words: accessibility, affordability, choice, and competition. For good measure, there is also perhaps a fifth word, and that is the word, right, as in Americans should have a right to health care as part of being a United States citizen.

In order to be healthy, we need care from our doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers. In other words, we must be able to access (the first word of reform) that care. We should all be astute enough to know how to call a doctor, or get over to a hospital emergency room. And if we do not, surely we have a friend, colleague, or loved one who can assist us. Recently, the major drugstore chains, like Walgreen's and CVS, have established in-store "clinics", staffed by licensed and certified nurse-practitioners, to treat garden variety ailments for less than it would be to visit a private doctor. But even though we know where to go for care, if we cannot afford (the second word of reform) it, it does not matter if the doctor is next door or down the block.

So, to pay to sustain our health means we need to find quality for the least expensive price. Typically, that can be obtained through health care insurance policies. After all, rarely, if ever, does anyone pay the "retail" rate for health care services; everything is always negotiated between provider and third party payor. But premiums for these policies cost lots of money, and millions of Americans cannot afford them. Those of us who have insurance are no doubt paying way too much for them as well.

In order for premiums to come down, either the private market has to voluntarily drop the cost, or there must be some outside pressure to force them to do so. We know the former does not work, since insurance companies in the private market are in business to be as profitable as possible. Shareholders would not want it any other way. The other way is for a "new kid in town" to make premiums come down. This kid is the public option. After all, the American way is to compete. By those who wish to compete, we have sufficient choice (our third and fourth words for reform) among the insurance being offered to us. The more choices, the better the price and the product.

Another reason a public option is critical is that insurance companies have been exempt from our antitrust laws for over 60 years. The opposite of competition is monopolization, which antitrust laws are designed to prevent. This includes monopolizing prices insurance companies charge as insurance premiums. Senator Leahy (D.-Vt.) introduced last week S. 1681 (H.R. 3596) to lift the exemption that the insurance industry has had since 1945. We should all get on that bandwagon to ensure its passage.

Parenthetically, if we do get a public option, let's ensure that insurance companies do not have the ability to hike premiums or reduce coverage before it (public option) goes into being. Remember what the credit card companies did with interest rates before recent regulations limiting interest charges went into effect? We shouldn't be taken as fools once more.

So, to all those on the Senate Finance Committee, before you cast your vote on the public option, think of the four words put forth in this post. That should not be a difficult thing to do, unless you really are unconcerned about carrying out the will of the people you swore to follow upon becoming an elected representative.

 

 

Comments

[Billl]

Two choices should be offered to everyone to use either; free public care from a new national health system, or alternatively to use privately purchased private care.

Health care can be fixed for people, employers and taxpayers quickly, and save hundreds of billions of dollars annually, if the President and legislators would allow the use of what President Obama has called “government’s unfair advantages”, to be used to pay for and deliver high quality low cost health care, as part of the reform solution.

All government funded costs could be reduced drastically if distributed only through civilian government hospitals using the proven VA systems.

This change, coupled with sales tax funding, would produce huge savings while providing better services, which could rescue our government from going broke as it honors its prior commitments for Medicare, Medicaid, and all other local and federal commitments.

Everyone, including seniors, selecting public care would receive all care and medications free, no restrictions, no insurance, and no co pays.

Employers who select public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have any further involvement with health care.

Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA.

Going back and forth between free public, and user purchased private care, would allow unlimited choices, ultimate freedom, and always free public care would be available.

[milesz - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for your comments. However, consider if there is private care, how much would it cost, and what controls would exist on private insurers to limit their premiums so that Americans don't go broke having to pay for them?

[droftim]

As far as I'm concerned it comes down to 2 words: Accessibility and Affordability. The other two are constructs of free marketers who refuse to acknowldege that competion has nothing to do with accessibility or affordability when it comes to health care.

[milesz - Huffpost Blogger]

But without choice in the form of real competition, the public option loses steam.

[PlaceboStudman]

Hate to disagree again, but *MY* 4 words are

Medicine And Technology Improvements

Anything else is finance reform, not Health Care reform

[milesz - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for your comment. Let's just say we agree to disagree. You will never get to advancements in medicine and technology without the ability of those in America to be able to access and afford them.

[PlaceboStudman]

And that is part of the problem. Affordability and accessibility should not be driving medical R&D, need should. Should it be okay for us to tell Bill Gates or Warren Buffettt or Steve Jobs who can all presumably afford any procedure or medicine they might need, that their much needed alternative high tech medical technology such as stem cell research is not available because the low income and uninsured, whose biggest medical concern is a broken foot or a sprained ankle get their botox and rogaine? Because that IS currently what is driving medical R&D from my perspective