Healthcare - The Public Option vs The Shareholder
I was disappointed to hear the details that the latest version of the comprehensive healthcare compromise excludes a public option. A public option is a sturdy measure in controlling the cost of basic healthcare needs, which in the USA the healthcare industry has exploited for their own (significant) financial benefit.
Here in Germany, we have a successful mixture of public and private plans that compete with each other with the government only mandating what needs to be covered at a minimum, leaving the rest of the details to the public Krankenkassen and private plans to sort out on their own and the consumer the free choice to choose what he-she wants. The result is a far superior system when examining basic healthcare indices, e.g. waiting time, cost, treatment efficacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.
Polling reveals that Americans want a public option available (70%), with the only protest coming from those backing the private companies, claiming "unfairness." Yet, these are the same private insurers who have been robbing the public for years with their exploding premiums. This debate does not seem to be on behalf of a government for the people and by the people, but one for the shareholder and against the people.
The CBO's fear that the droves of people would flee private insurance for a public option, an implicit acknowledgement of the public's desire for a public option, when assessing the impact of such a plan on the budget on the budget, neglects to take into account that a successful public plan would free businesses from the exorbitant yearly raises in the costs of healthcare, in turn enabling higher wages to be paid, which would provide the financing for the government program through increased tax revenue.
I make no claim to be a health care wonk, but this general approach seems to me so startlingly sensible that I wasn't suprised to find it discussed by someone outside the USA.
One fact, and a few conjectures:
(1)Fact: My spouse's treasured employer-sponsored 'private option' increased 28% this year (yes, 28%!). According to her, if her boss simply decides at any point not to carry it anymore, it's over. What then? On the other hand, how does any person continue to sustain 28% annual increases?
(2)Your paragraph 2 describes exactly what SHOULD be done: A broad, simple, high-deduction basic public plan, available to all - supplemented by whatever private options the individual might care to purchase to fill-in the cracks.
(3)Let's get business back to work on the specifics of their businesses, and out of the health care business. As GM and Chrysler are proving, that's enough of a challenge by itself. Again, any private employer that feels they SHOULD offer a form of health care benefits has every right to do so, but no longer any OBLIGATION to do so.
Excellent post.
June 19, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been in Germany for two years now, and the official numbers are astounding; you actually have to put in a lot of effort not to be covered here, and over 90% of the population are enrolled in one of the many public plans (8% are private, and the remaining 2% -the super rich- have opted to pay in cash).
Furthermore, my employer and I share the cost. The first 3600 Euros of your monthly salary are subject to a 7.4% tax, which my employer matches. With that simple transaction, my family and I are all insured.
I have had an MRI and a CT scan in the last year due to sports related injuries, and the wait was always less than 48 for the reading and the diagnosis. As soon as the swelling receded, my injury was repaired. I never received a single bill - no deductible.
My best friend in the States tore his ACL playing soccer (same deal as me) and had to wait 3 weeks for an MRI and another 4 for his surgery. 8 weeks after my injury I was beginning to learn how to walk again and he was just post-op.
We can do better!
June 19, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But guys --- are we ready to RUMBLE? I am~
Someone said else where how we could spend so much money in the economy if we were not wasting it on health insurance. Although I am the first to boot the insurance out the door, who said that the single payer/private option should be free? \\
I have no problem with each of us paying a reasonable sum for a shared risk health policy. If middle class people pay $300 a month for really good health coverage, and they can take it with them on vacation, and irrespective of their jobs, where's the beef? Who came up with the idea that it should be completely free?
Oh. I guess it was the republicans, who want to make the option impossible.
I agree that we should pay for our health care; I just think it should be affordable, and not bogged down with insane pre-existing conditions, and exclusions, and we should ALL PAY THE SAME THING, BECAUSE IF WE ARE HEALTHY NOW, WE WON'T ALWAYS BE, AND ONLY THROUGH SHARING THE RISK CAN THIS BE AFFORDABLE!
Oh, my god, I've said it again for the 1,000th time.. Who is listening? No one.
June 19, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Germany we pay for our insurance. Each working individual pays a max 270 euros per month and that generates enough capital to fund the whole system. Or, the US could just cut a bit of defense spending, which eats up over $650,000,000,000.00 per year - $550,000,000,000.00 is still a lot of money....
June 20, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink