The Reading Blog

Americans United for Change is spreading this sardonic video to promote the message that people (including our elected representatives) should not be scared of real health care reform. It’s very funny how the government bureaucracy “bogeyman” message is repeated over and over by scaremongers, as if that could possibly be any more aggravating (or terrifying) than the private health insurance bureaucracy that most of us have to contend with!

For the more literary types, the recent New York Times editorial, “A Public Health Plan” (6/20/2009) provides another eloquent argument to support the public plan option.

As the debate on health care reform unfolds, no issue has caused such partisan rancor — and spawned such misleading rhetoric — as whether to create a new public insurance plan to compete with private plans.  The nation already has several huge public plans, including Medicare for the elderly (once reviled by conservatives, it is now only short of the flag in its popularity) and Medicaid for the poor. Now the issue is whether to establish a new public plan to encourage more competition among health insurers and provide Americans with an alternative.

Most Democrats and some Republicans have already accepted the need to create one or more health insurance exchanges where individuals without group coverage and possibly small businesses could buy insurance policies. Some proponents hope that big businesses could enroll their workers as well. [...]

What Republicans are adamantly opposed to is the idea of adding a public plan to that exchange. They portray it as a “government takeover” of the health care system, or even as socialized medicine. Those are egregious mischaracterizations. There is no serious consideration in Congress of a single-payer governmental program that would enroll virtually everyone. Nor is there any talk of extending the veterans health care system, a stellar example of “socialized medicine,” to the general public.

The debate is really over whether to open the door a crack for a new public plan to compete with the private plans. Most Democrats see this as an important element in any health care reform, and so do we. A public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans, no need to generate big profits, and stronger bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. That should enable it to charge lower premiums than many private plans. It would also provide an alternative for individuals who either can’t get adequate insurance from private insurers or don’t trust the private insurance industry to treat them fairly. And it could serve as a yardstick for comparing the performance of private plans and for testing innovative coverage schemes.

Unfortunately, many Senate Democrats are so desperate to find a political compromise with Republicans — or so bullied by the rhetoric — that they are in danger of gravely weakening a public plan, or eliminating it entirely. That would be a mistake.

[...] The prospect of competing with a government plan terrifies the private insurers. But in our judgment, if that many Americans were to decide that such a plan is a better deal for them and their families, that would be a good thing. Innovative private plans that already deliver better services at lower costs would survive. Inefficient private plans would wither.

[...]  We continue to believe that a public plan would be desirable. Surveys by the Commonwealth Fund have found that Medicare beneficiaries report fewer problems obtaining medical care, less financial hardship due to medical bills, and higher satisfaction with their coverage than do workers insured by private employers. [...]

As a self-employed, tax-paying citizen relying on my spouse’s health insurance policy, I certainly support the creation of a competitive, publicly-funded health plan.