Fifteen years ago the private health insurance industry told Congress and the nation that it could fix the health care mess if government got out of the way. The insurers said that they would control costs for American families and businesses and improve the quality of care. The American people, American business and the Congress aren't about to buy that line again.
The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.
The insurance industry and their defenders on the ideological right are resorting to the same name tired name calling that worked for them the past, "government-run" health care. It's a desperate attempt to fend off a sensible government role in making health care affordable to our families, businesses and nation. This time it won't work. The President and leadership in Congress -- and the American -- people support a two-pronged role for government. One, set rules so that the private insurance industry can't continue to put profits before our health. Two, offer a choice of private insurance or a public health insurance plan, so people aren't stuck only with private insurance.
The fact is that if private insurers controlled health care inflation as well as Medicare has over the past decade, businesses and families would see much lower premiums than they do today. Between 1997 and 2006, per enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59% faster than spending in Medicare. And Medicare has the tougher job, because it cares for the most expensive population: the elderly and those with serious disabilities.
One reason that private insurers have gotten away with skyrocketing premium increases is that they have a near monopoly across the nation. According to data from the American Medical Association, in virtually every metropolitan area in the country (96%) the insurance market is dominated by so few insurers so as to be considered "highly-concentrated." A public health insurance option coupled with a regulated private insurance market will break the stranglehold a handful of companies have on the insurance market. Most importantly, under these reforms consumers will be able to vote with their feet when their health care plan -- public or private -- doesn't work for them.
In fact, the main argument that the industry and the right has with offering the choice of a public health insurance option is that too many Americans will choose it. If private insurers are really more efficient than government, they shouldn't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. It's the height of irony that the defenders of free markets are opposed to competition. But when it comes to health care, which is a public good, public insurers really are more efficient.
There is broad agreement that America's health care system does not deliver the value we need. Today, private insurers have little incentive to develop sophisticated disease management programs, since such programs may attract sicker patients into their plan. And when care improvements are achieved, private plans have no incentive to share best practices with industry competitors. A new public health insurance plan would create a mechanism for the development of innovative and transparent payment mechanisms, the expansion of quality incentives, and the adoption of evidence-based protocols. As the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare have proven capable of doing, a new public health insurance program could lead the way in advancing electronic medical records, creating incentives for greater integration of delivery systems, and establishing improved measures of quality.
The American public gets it. In a national survey of voters taken last year, four-out-of-five voters (79%) said that the insurance industry puts profits before people. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week found that two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare."
Polling by Lake Research Partners this January found that the public believes that the choice of a public health insurance option will lower costs, improve quality, and increase competition. The poll paired the strongest conservative attacks -- "rationing", "government bureaucracy", losing private health insurance and being dumped into a public plan -- against the arguments for the choice of a public health insurance plan. In every case the public favors the pro-public health insurance option, in most cases by margins of better than two-to-one. For example, 61% agree that a public health insurance plan will be better able to control costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Voters reject by wide margins claims that a public health insurance plan will limit access, with 66% of voters agreeing that a public health insurance plan will provide an affordable option with a wide choice of doctors.
The question before Congress is whether it will follow the will of the American people. Or, instead, bow to the private insurance industry and other interests that stand to lose if reforms are passed to really make health care more affordable. The President and Congressional leadership share a strong commitment to reforms that will guarantee good, affordable coverage for all, with a choice of private or public health insurance. We know opponents will use scare tactics across the country and a huge corporate lobbying presence inside the Beltway to block reform. Progressive leaders in Congress and Health Care for America Now will be working hard to keep the American public engaged in this fight over the next months. Our success will be the hallmark of a new era in American politics in which the public good is put ahead of corporate excess and greed.
Become a fan of HuffPost Politics on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
Roads are in the public interest, right? Rather than having state DOTs contract for highway construction and road infrastructure, maybe we should have government-run contractors that can compete with these private contractors.
Trash disposal is in the public interest, right? Rather than counties contracting with disposal services companies, maybe we should have government-run disposal services that can compete with private companies.
Many families struggle to put food on the table. Basic sustenance is in the public interest, right? Rather than allowing big grocers to soak the people, maybe we should have government-run grocery stores that compete against the Albertson's of the world.
And the list can go on...
But my money is still on the insurance/pharma lobby to stiff all your wonderful ideas.
President Obama's proposal is not health reform, but a continuation of the status quo: expansion of government-run health care to "fix" the problems that government-run health care has already caused.
Option 4, public/private option. Federal doctors are approved by the Feds, and are allowed to diagnose ailments. Once they do, your health insurance cannot dispute whether you have the disease. HMO's cannot prevent you from going to any Federally certified doctor you want, so they can't pressure Federal Doctors not to diagnose you...
Either have Medicare taxes increased .2% or so and pay for everyone to have 4 free doctor visits a year (and 8 for kids) or create a mandated doctor visit payment that insurance companies have to pay Federal Doctors for diagnosis visits.
Impossible, they say.
Though I am sure it was totally unintentional the Coburn article pointed out all the ways that private insurance in a reform mix and mandated purchase of it have made the Mass. plan a failure.
The combination of this article and Coburn's makes the case very well that the only real useful reform is Single Payer and that anything short of that cannot and will not work.
support HR 676 and SB 703.
The people who point out that it is the system and not just this one issue are right on target. Keep that in mind as we raise a clamor in favor of real health care reform.
It would appear government can do some things better than the private free market model.
It just doesn't include you if you are under 62. Now children have been opted and mandated into Medicare but not you.
When will we have universal health care for all Americans and stop the discrimination?
To think that you're well-being would outweigh the bottom-line(profit) is foolish.
Given the state of the economy it is safe to say big business owners do not wake up
each day with the thought of how much good they can bring to the world but rather
how much they can take away.
Health care reform is simply another issue that will be debated for the next decade or two but no one will really accomplish anything with it. As for Medicare that's a complete joke. My husband had a great job with great benefits until he was severely injured at work. Now, 45 surgeries later - he is considered disabled. We lost everything we had worked our entire lives for waiting for 4 years for his disability claim to get approved. When it did get approved it didn't mean things were going to get better - they were just as bad. His medical bills and prescription costs are not even covered by the disability check he gets. Medicare does not cover any costs at all for dental work - not even extractions. Medicare does not pay for glasses or eye exams either. Any health care system we have in this country is a complete joke. Our government would rather let people suffer and die than help.
There are good people in this world who have a very hard time surviving because our government would rather hand out money to the rich instead of helping real live people.
Health Care policy is a policy of discrimination perpetuated by our own government and excluding several classes and races from participating.
It would be wildly deflationary, but perhaps this nightmare needs to be completely unwound. The radical "medicine" would be to terminate all insurance for a period, then we would find out what medicine was really worth if providers had to take what the real people market would really bear.
Even with prompting that recognizing the Senator is very busy all I had to do was talk to one of the Senators designated representatives and go over it with them to make sure my good intentions didn't make matters worse, however I was talked around and conjoled into please explain what I had, with all the explanations that it was to indepth to be discussed on the phone made no head way. So I know that unless the Pharmacutical, Hospital, or Doctors lobbying groups give their approval NO Congressman or woman or Senator is going to talk to a average American, I am under and will remain under ther impression that unless you have money for me I do NOT have time for you.
So do not expectr much from either party I know for a fact Texas isn't considering anything and Colorado is calling it a dead issue till next year,so much for a government of for and bt the p.eople
A national health insurance should make it affordable and cover dental care and prescription drugs too. Affordable insurance should be and can be mandatory insurance. People in high income brackets are free to purchase their private insurance, after all if you are wealthy enough, like Buffet or Gates you don't need insurance at all.
National health care would move with you to other jobs or location, you would choose your own physician, your physician would not have to ask permission for treatment, dental and pregnancy would be included. as well as prescriptions. Why see your Dr. if you can't buy your medicine? Fewer people would need to go to emergency and real emergencies would not have to wait for hours to be treated.
In short, people would get more for the money, they would not have to pay extra for the insurance industries profits. The nation could afford a national health care system but can't afford the private insurance system.
Which, oddly enough, stem cell applications would do!