Why Shouldn’t the Government Offer Health Care?
Seriously, why not? Our nation’s number one goal is not
preserving the profits of insurance companies. The big nightmare scenario that insurance companies often bring up is that
if the government provides for a public health care system, there is a chance
that Americans will want it. What needs
to be remembered is that, if this actually does happen, the people choosing to
buy into the government option will be choosing to buy into it because it
actually provides them with good health care for their dollar, not because they
have an inherent urge to hand money over to the government. If the option isn’t good people won’t buy
it. What also needs to be kept in mind
is that the public option is not a health care giveaway, it is simply
competition for the insurance industry. People who will get coverage under the public option will not be given
free healthcare, as are some individuals who get coverage under Medicaid, but
instead are simply going to face prices that are lower than those insurance
companies are currently offering. Further, estimates of the revenues and expenses of the plan show that
the vast majority of costs paid out will be covered with money taken in, so the
public option will be in meaningful competition with the insurance industry,
and not an unstoppable force in that market arena. Even those most critical of the option’s cost will readily admit
that even a high estimate of the yearly price tag is less than one tenth of
what was spent last year to keep the banks afloat. A good chuck of money to be sure, but completely in line with
numerous other budgetary items.
Further, it warrants emphasis that
the primary reason that the public option will be such an appealing choice is
that it will contain regulations that prevent providers from engaging in the
price gouging of customers. This leads
to the reality that, if predictions of low cost and high quality are right,
there is direct evidence that the insurance industry had indeed previously
been inefficient in reducing price. Conversely, if the public option does not prove to be cheaper or better,
people will not buy it and will be no worse off than they were before as
private insurance would still be the norm. It should be noted that insurance companies will be against a public
option if it succeeds in giving Americans as a whole better healthcare for
their dollar as it will reduce their profits. Insurance companies will also be against the option even if it
ultimately fails, as it will still mean that society was at least considering
alternatives to the status quo. As
insurance companies will be against the option no matter what happens, one has
to wonder if the spokespeople for that industry are really the ones who should
be informing the debate on this issue.
Instead of being told what to think, the question needs to be asked by legislators, if
Congress can create a plan that can provide high quality health care to
hundreds of millions of Americans at a price lower than what the insurance
industry is currently charging, is it really necessary to throw this option by
the wayside simply because it comes from the government? Must we really pretend
that government is always so unnecessary and cumbersome even when the evidence
is virtually undeniable that there are some things that the government simply
can do better? Furthermore, must we
pretend that there is no inherent paradox when people assert that there is no
chance that the public option would work and then in the same breath say they
are afraid that the plan would be so appealing that it would drive private
insurance companies out of business? For the most part the people insisting on ignoring these questions are
financially interested in making the assertion that insurance companies are the
only ones capable enough to provide health care.
The reality is that if people do purchase insurance
under the public plan they will do so because they find they are getting good
healthcare for their dollar. This is
crucial to remember, because to hear the insurance companies tell it, one would
believe that people have a deep seeded love for handing over money while
remaining sick. However, this is not
the truth. The truth is that if people
hand over money to the public plan they will be making a market choice, just
like every other time people willingly hand over money. Just like when they choose the U.S. Postal
system over Federal Express. Additionally, there is no truth to the idea that somehow if the public
plan pulls some customers away from the big insurance companies there is no way
the insurance companies can operate profitably. This can be refuted in two major ways. The most basic way to do this is to point out that right at this
moment, in addition to profitable big insurance companies, there are profitable
small insurance companies. This shows
that it can be done. Secondly whatever
the public plan offers in terms of treatment, some people are going to want an
alternative to it just because they do not like the specifics of the plan. This is going to happen in enough cases for
the insurance companies to be profitable if the public option has any
significant flaws. In the event that
congress somehow creates a flawless plan then I guess insurance companies are
out of luck.
The reality is
that insurance companies are only likely to make less profit competing with a public option, not go out of
business. Again I ask, so what? Seriously, if all the people on whom the
insurance companies would otherwise make a profit make an informed choice to
stay with the public option then this is great news, as it means we have
created a better system that people are choosing willingly over the private
options. If we can get more for our
dollar, why shouldn’t we? At the end of
the day, after having heard the arguments made by insurance companies, we must
ask ourselves a question about our values and make a decision. Should we insure the vast majority of
Americans and provide affordable healthcare or should we ensure that insurance
companies do no lose any of their profits? If we cannot bring ourselves to answer this question, then maybe this
country really is in need of a doctor.