'Public Plan' Eliminates Choice, Endangers Health

Obama Explains the Problem

This week, President Obama lectured Americans who labored under the delusion that they liked their private health plans. When faced with the fact that, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 80 percent of people "are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have," Obama said, "The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages."

Problem? From 1997 to 2007, medical spending as a percent of disposable income on average, remained about the same according to the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics. True, people are paying more of the cost of their own care than they were five years ago. But then and now, a mosaic of Americans from every income, racial and ethnic group spending more on White Castle, Wii and cell phones then they do on health care.

Team Obama is flailing. Enraged that Americans are not in prostrate appreciation over the opportunity to fork over nearly $2 trillion and be herded into a Medicaid for the middle class, the president and his crew have harsh words for Americans who cling to their private plans.

And boy, does he believe we are stupid. He went on tell us that a public plan would not depend on any public subsidies. I guess he'll need a public option telethon, because $2 trillion doesn't count as a "public subsidy."

The "public option" proposal was supposed to be better at estimating and containing costs. But it came in over budget. In fact, government run health plans do not control costs; they just decide where to spend money when they expand. Medicare and Medicaid budgets are 10 times original predictions. Health care spending in every Western health care system with a public "option" has been growing faster since 2000 than it has in the United States.

Moreover, public "options" don't promote competition; they eliminate it. When Hugo Chavez created public "options" to produce oil and food it wasn't to compete with private businesses but to eliminate them.

Similarly, President Obama asks: "Why would it (a public plan) drive private insurance out of business?" Here's how. Medicare Advantage is a managed-care-run program that seniors -- mostly the chronically ill and minorities -- are choosing in droves. Medicare Advantage costs a bit more because it addresses the long term changes needed in health care: a trend toward personalized medicine, an emphasis on prevention, and the involvement of beneficiaries. Things that fee-for-service Medicare simply can't offer.

But the President sees Medicare Advantage only as another source subsidy... I mean revenue... for the public plan. So he plans to wipe it out by reducing what doctors and plans get paid. That's not competition, that's racketeering.

Similarly, the President's budget chief claims that 30 percent of health care could be eliminated to free up public plan dough without affecting health. In fact, data shows that the most of the variation in health care costs is a result of the undertreatment of illnesses such as diabetes. Analysis of this data by zip code suggests under treatment could be tied to being on Medicaid, another public "option." Driving millions of Americans into public plans could make matters worse.

There's a cheaper way to cover uninsured Americans and making health care more cost effective: Focus reform efforts on improving health, not finding money for the public plan.

Page
  • 1
  • |
  • 2
null
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...