A Public Plan is Healthy Competition

[marmar]

from OurFuture.org:



A Public Plan is Healthy Competition
By Roger Hickey

April 8th, 2009 - 11:02am ET


Jacob Hacker’s 2006 book, The Great Risk Shift, helped politicians understand the economic pressures on the average family — including the rising costs and increasing loss of health insurance — or the threat.

And in his Health Care for America plan for health reform, published in early 2007 by the Economic Policy Institute, he outlines the concept of Public Insurance Plan Choice — the idea that all Americans be guaranteed

1.the right to keep the insurance they currently have, or
2.choose either from competing private insurance plans — OR
3.a public insurance plan — like Medicare for the not-yet-elderly.
Today we are releasing an important report by Dr. Jacob Hacker.

It is entitled HEALTHY COMPETITION: How to Structure Public Health Insurance Plan Choice to Ensure Risk-Sharing, Cost Control, and Quality Improvement.

The report is being published jointly by our Institute for America’s Future and the Center for Health, Economic & Family Security of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law where Dr. Hacker is Co-Director. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009041508/public-plan-healthy-competition

[Horse with no Name]

1. Healthy competition is bad news for the insurance industry

I wish I had my hands on the actual figures of the administration costs of Medicare vs. an actual insurance policy--but it is astounding and shows EXACTLY where ALL of the money goes.

[Juche]

3. Public option is 20% cheaper

Administration is cheaper and there isn't the problem of high salaries for bureaucrats, shareholder dividends, profits, etc.

Not only that but 1/3 of all medical spending is wasted. In the stimulus Obama called for (and got) 1.1 billion into researching healthcare to find ways to make it more efficient. If Obama integrates those ideas when they are completed into the public plan it will be 30-40% cheaper than a private plan.

[PHIMG]

2. Public Option is not enough

Lewin Group analyzes the impact of several proposed scenarios for the public option: http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinCostandCoverageImpactsofPublicPlan-Alternative%20DesignOptions.pdf

from the report: "If Medicare payment levels are used in the public plan, premiums would be up to 30 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage. On average, the monthly premium in the public plan for a typical benefits package would be $761 per family compared with an average of $970 per family in the private market for the same coverage."

How many people can afford $761 out of pocket? Sure it's a good thing that it's down from $970 a month but $200 less is progress? I don't think that this will solve the problem of the uninsured.

With single payer you don't pay anything out of pocket its paid for with progressive taxation which means your portion is subsidized by millionaires and billionaires to who will pay a multiple of $761 so you can pay like $300 or some other reasonable amount based on your income.

If it's not paid for with progressive taxation then it's not really reform.

The public option is a distraction from what we all should be fighting to get our politicians to enact: SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. Medicare for all. One plan for the nation -- everyone in, nobody out.

Taiwan moved to this system in 1995 and it was a huge success. Why not USA?