Back to Basics

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What do advocates of a public option think will happen if it's included in the system? Eligible consumers will a) be able to choose a cheaper, Medicare-like alternative to private insurance; b.) private insurers will offer better coverage as a result of competition; and c) both.

But that confidence rests on a very simple premise: The public sector does a better job providing health-care coverage than the private sector. If that proves untrue -- and I would imagine most every conservative would confidently assume that that's untrue -- the plan will fail. The public option will not provide better coverage at better prices, and so it will not be chosen, and it will languish. Indeed, if it languishes, it will lack customers and thus lack bargaining power and economies of scale, and get worse even as the private insurers get better. In that scenario, the public option not only fails, but it discredits single-payer entirely.

The liberals are willing to bet that they're right. It's not a sneaky strategy: It's an up-front wager. The conservatives are not, however, willing to bet that they're wrong. They're willing to say the public option will fail, but not give consumers the chance to decide that for themselves.

Exactly. One of the common criticisms from the right is that a public option would offer awful coverage -- government-imposed rationing, long wait times, bureaucrats making treatment decisions, etc. But here's the angle that often goes overlooked: if that were true, no one would pick the public option, private insurers would be thrilled, and conservatives would have nothing to worry about. If people are given a choice, no one would pick the nightmarish option.

Except, of course, conservatives don't really believe that, or at a minimum, they aren't willing to take the risk.

The public-private competition is something for the right to fear, precisely because they're confident the private insurers would lose in a straight-up, level-playing-field fight. With this in mind, the goal is to protect insurance companies, even if it costs more, even if the treatments aren't as good, even if consumers might prefer a better alternative.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Edited September 29, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Tahoma 2,298]

It will be an uphill battle for a public option to get through Congress as long as Big Insurance and Big Pharma are providing the payola.

[mawilson 2,133]

How can any profit-driven company compete with a non-profit public option?

The public option is supposed to keep private insurance companies "honest", but once

they're driven out of business (which they will be), who's going to keep the public option

honest and competitive?

[Tahoma 2,298]

How can any profit-driven company compete with a non-profit public option?

The public option is supposed to keep private insurance companies "honest", but once

they're driven out of business (which they will be), who's going to keep the public option

honest and competitive?

The government can hire all of those out-of-work private insurance company CEO's. Doesn't everyone trust them to be honest?

[mawilson 2,133]

How can any profit-driven company compete with a non-profit public option?

The public option is supposed to keep private insurance companies "honest", but once

they're driven out of business (which they will be), who's going to keep the public option

honest and competitive?

The government can hire all of those out-of-work private insurance company CEO's. Doesn't everyone trust them to be honest?

Competition keeps companies honest.

No competition - no incentive to provide a good service or low prices.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

D) NONE OF THE ABOVE

[SMR 368]

I would agree with this premise if public option meant that you create a government run organization that receives no tax-payer funding and runs entirely from premiums paid by those who use the service.

But this isn't the case. The public option, as typically invoked, is a plan which requires businesses to pay a penalty tax if they don't provide health care. This penalty tax will help to fund the "public option." Of course the private sector can't compete with the public option when the public option is funded by the government. It's just basic economics. If the government is selling widgets at half price and making up the difference from tax-payer funds, nobody is going to sell widgets.

That is why a public option would lead to private insurance companies going out of business. It's the same reason that there is only one college in the whole US that does not receive any government funding. And it's really expensive. When the government subsidizes something, you can't compete with them.

Now, if the government decided to sell widgets at what it cost to make them +overhead, I have no doubt that the private sector could compete.

[mawilson 2,133]

I would agree with this premise if public option meant that you create a government run organization that receives no tax-payer funding and runs entirely from premiums paid by those who use the service.

That's exactly the way it's going to work.

But this isn't the case. The public option, as typically invoked, is a plan which requires businesses to pay a penalty tax if they don't provide health care. This penalty tax will help to fund the "public option."

No, it will not fund the public option. The money will be used to provide coverage for the poor

(or the not-so-poor who can't afford it on their own) - all 47 million of them.

[Tahoma 2,298]

How can any profit-driven company compete with a non-profit public option?

The public option is supposed to keep private insurance companies "honest", but once

they're driven out of business (which they will be), who's going to keep the public option

honest and competitive?

The government can hire all of those out-of-work private insurance company CEO's. Doesn't everyone trust them to be honest?

Competition keeps companies honest.

No competition - no incentive to provide a good service or low prices.

Witness the "competition" in the deregulated credit card companies. Have credit card interest rates gone down? Not mine.

Witness the "competition" between health insurance companies. Are the rates going down? Not mine (nor anyone that I know).

[mawilson 2,133]

Witness the "competition" in the deregulated credit card companies. Have credit card interest rates gone down?

Absolutely! No annual fees, lots of different rewards (up to 5% cash back for some

purchase categories), 0% interest... credit card offers have never been better.

Not mine.

That's your problem. Improve your credit rating and credit cards will compete for your business.

I get fantastic offers in the mail every day. I get crappy ones too (30% APR and such), but

the choice is definitely there.

Witness the "competition" between health insurance companies. Are the rates going down? Not mine (nor anyone that I know).

First of all, there's no real competition between health insurance companies. In many

states, there's only one or two providers to choose from.

Second, competition is not a sufficient condition - it's a necessary one. Competition

does not ensure efficiency or low prices, but in the absence of competition, inefficiency

will prevail.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I don't think that is true. There are many non profit organisations that are extremely efficient. They are generally not large though. Size does seem to have a bearing on efficiency, more of a bearing than other factors I would say.

[SMR 368]

How can any profit-driven company compete with a non-profit public option?

The public option is supposed to keep private insurance companies "honest", but once

they're driven out of business (which they will be), who's going to keep the public option

honest and competitive?

The government can hire all of those out-of-work private insurance company CEO's. Doesn't everyone trust them to be honest?

Competition keeps companies honest.

No competition - no incentive to provide a good service or low prices.

Witness the "competition" in the deregulated credit card companies. Have credit card interest rates gone down? Not mine.

Witness the "competition" between health insurance companies. Are the rates going down? Not mine (nor anyone that I know).

Giving somebody uninsured credit is expensive. That's because of all the people that run up credit cards and never pay them or go bankrupt. As was said, if you have a good credit rating and credit history, you can get reasonable credit card rates with good rewards. Anybody who is using a credit card responsibly doesn't care so much what the interest rate is, because they don't pay interest very often.

If you are trying to make a large one-time purchase and want to pay for it over a period of time, there are better ways to pay for it than a credit card (cars, education, and homes and even large sticker items at most stores can be bought through different payment agreements). If you are trying to improve cash flow and convenience, you should be paying off your credit card without incurring interest. If you are using your credit card to go to the mall, go on a shopping spree, and buy a whole bunch of junk that you can't afford, yes, it's expensive. Live within your means. I have so little sympathy for anyone that complains about high interest rates on a credit card.

As far as health insurance, the problem is that the government has made regulations and tax schemes that mean most people are motivated to buy insurance through an employer. Remove that and let people buy insurance on their own and you would see the free market at work.

[mawilson 2,133]

Giving somebody uninsured credit is expensive. That's because of all the people that run up credit cards and never pay them or go bankrupt. As was said, if you have a good credit rating and credit history, you can get reasonable credit card rates with good rewards. Anybody who is using a credit card responsibly doesn't care so much what the interest rate is, because they don't pay interest very often.

If you are trying to make a large one-time purchase and want to pay for it over a period of time, there are better ways to pay for it than a credit card (cars, education, and homes and even large sticker items at most stores can be bought through different payment agreements). If you are trying to improve cash flow and convenience, you should be paying off your credit card without incurring interest. If you are using your credit card to go to the mall, go on a shopping spree, and buy a whole bunch of junk that you can't afford, yes, it's expensive. Live within your means. I have so little sympathy for anyone that complains about high interest rates on a credit card.

As far as health insurance, the problem is that the government has made regulations and tax schemes that mean most people are motivated to buy insurance through an employer. Remove that and let people buy insurance on their own and you would see the free market at work.

[mRx 16]

I would agree with this premise if public option meant that you create a government run organization that receives no tax-payer funding and runs entirely from premiums paid by those who use the service.

That's exactly the way it's going to work.

Which of course would be swiftly supplanted by deficit and inflation (which is exactly the way Medicare is run).

Supporters of government-run HC use Medicare as an example of "cost effective", when really Medicare just appears cost effective by sharing costs among non-participants (taxes), and deferring costs (deficits).

[SMR 368]

I would agree with this premise if public option meant that you create a government run organization that receives no tax-payer funding and runs entirely from premiums paid by those who use the service.

That's exactly the way it's going to work.

Which of course would be swiftly supplanted by deficit and inflation (which is exactly the way Medicare is run).

Supporters of government-run HC use Medicare as an example of "cost effective", when really Medicare just appears cost effective by sharing costs among non-participants (taxes), and deferring costs (deficits).

Yes. Matt is right on target here.

I think most conservatives would have no problem with a non-profit that had to run on premiums and provided health care. You just have to insure that this organization would have no advantages over privately run insurance. That means no government funding and no advantages in the rate bargaining process with health care providers.

Also, there should be no penalty for not purchasing health insurance.