A Public Plan: Does Health Reform Need One?

Does???

It's simple arithmetic that if health costs are supposed to come down and the number of people covered is supposed to go up that the money's going to have to come out of someone's pocket.
.
The only detail being debated is who?

Hell, let's just stay the course! Hell, the $2 cotton ball does have a certain appeal...

We have made arguing about the health care we need so complicated and filled with so much dishonesty that it is impossible to see the way ahead. Too many vested interests; too much money at stake, too many privileged elites. Get Congress off their health care package and let them scramble like the rest of us. Boy, will we get reform in a jiffy.

"We have made arguing about the health care we need so complicated and filled with so much dishonesty that it is impossible to see the way ahead."
.
I agree. But this all about money. No matter what comes out of this current cluster f*@k it is not going to be real reform its going to be a reshuffle of money. Its mind boggling the type of things we can charge to the taxpayer without so much as batting an eye.

Do Health Reform Need One?

Yes it do.
.
It's interesting that the arguments against a public option seem to be:
.
A) It would take away your choice of doctors, increase waiting times, lead to rationing, lead to socialism, cause bad breath, and all kinds of other unpleasant stuff. Certainly no one would want to quit their private plan for this!
-and-
B) Destroy the private health insurance industry because people will prefer the public option and abandon their current plans.
.
Seems to be a bit of a contradiction, doesn't it?

Read alank at Firedoglake. Our system is at the tail end of a ranking which includes the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France. Looks like the socialists are winning this one! Don't think Sweden: it's tooooo socialist. Everyone is covered.

Just a heads up, the provided link goes to page two of the story. May want to fix that.

I'm insured with a public option (medicaid). My neurologist needed to schedule a brain MRI for me, and his office was relieved I was on medicaid (!!) because "it's the only insurance now that doesn't need prior approval." That's true at least in my state. One thing I really never need to worry about is that if I need treatment it will be denied.

For anyone interested in this subject, I strongly recommend that you watch Sicko (Michael Moore's movie about health care in the US). Whether you like Moore's antics or not (I could have done without the segments in Cuba), Moore had his facts straight and he does a very good job of describing the problem. His primary focus in the movie is not people with no health insurance, but instead those people who have insurance but come to find out that their plans are insufficient to protect them. Unfortunately, as long time readers of this blog know, KT has a family member who has had personal experience with this problem.

Wow, even for David Brooks, this is bizarre - In today's column he says Obama has two ways to fix health care: There is the liberal way, in which the government takes over the health care system and decides who gets what. And then there is the conservative way, in which cost-conscious consumers make choices in the context of a competitive marketplace.
.
It's private insurance that is deciding who gets what, not the current public health programs, who seldom deny coverage. "cost-conscious consumers" want to stop giving private insurance companies a fat profit.
.
Brooks apparently doesn't know how difficult it is for an individual to change insurance. My guess is that lots of companies that provide insurance to their employees are looking to cut their costs, not necessarily looking for the best coverage.

I think Obama is treading too lightly on this. Small business would thrive under a public plan because prospective applicants would not be shopping for medical, and big business would have a huge burden lifted from their shoulders.
.
I can't think of any reason why, under the current conditions, anyone has a problem with public health, either as single payer or competing with the current system.

I worry that we'll wind up with "health care reform" that turns out to be like Medicare Part D, with immense profits for big pharma and health insurers, billions in tax dollars spent, and the supposed beneficiaries left with a doughnut hole.

Single-payer is the most sensible plan, but it looks like we'll be catering to the lobbyists instead.

And as for Kent Conrad's "co-op" bright idea, has he never heard of Blue Cross and Blue Shield? That sounds like what he's describing.

KT:
.
More coffee. But, can I venture this:
.
I'm stuck by the roadside, engine smoking, having already taken this particular junker to the shop many times before, thinking it's cheaper to fix it than buy a new one, and now?
.
Would I really be debating in my head whether I need to buy another car?

Thinking aloud–

Conrad's co-op plan might work if the various co-ops, answerable to their respective insured, could gain market power by utilizing a unified sourcing entity to negotiate significantly reduced costs for materials and prescriptions. We need some alternative to compete with the current private insurance model that inherently commits resources to denial of coverage, and a co-op might fill the bill as well as a program more directly under governmental control.
Exclusion of any "public option" would appear to leave the solution in the hands of the same insurance industry that has caused and perpetuated the problem. Exactly how would we see any improvement at all?

Other than Charlie Brown and the occasional pirate, I knew of no one who actually says 'Argh'. Now I do.

Thanks for linking to the piece, KT.
.
I may have some things to say about it later.

I think it's good piece but it goes off the rails when it says that some argue that a public clearing house plan might offer people better rates that they get as individuals or small business employees. That's fine but it's not enough. A public plan needs to offer better rates and more services than people get from large employee insurance deals as well. Really, everyone should at least have access to care as good as our congressional reps get, for less than we are paying now. That's the standard. "Better than individuals get now" is too low a bar.

Most of the public believes:
AMA = all US doctors
-and-
AMA = benevolent group working to improve health care for all
.
The truth is far different. Only about 30% of doctors are members of the AMA. Also, the AMA aggressively funded senators who opposed SCHIP (link).

@ bobcn1: The AMA is another trade union. I don't want to offend trade unions but you get the picture. As long as self-interest rules reform will be tough. If one believes the ad campaign launched by the insurers you can come away with the impression that this gang thinks only of patient welfare. Profits? and fat ones at that: no! They are dedicated to patient well being, and want to protect patients from an abusive government bureaucracy.

You know, for all the crying about "socialized, government run health care", I just signed up for that very thing last week. And it was really easy. And cheap.
-
The program is called Tricare Reserve Select. (It's only available to the military, just like all the successful government run health care systems in the U.S.) Signup was really funny. I verified I was a member of the National Guard, and then chose whether or not I wanted coverage for myself, or for myself and my dependent family. (Prices were $47.50 and $202 respectively.)
-
That was it. I faxed in a form and blammo! Coverage. No crazy pre-existing conditions checks, no physical to make sure I wasn't already sick. No insane arguing about plan details and copays and tradeoffs. Pretty cool if you ask me. Wish everyone had that opportunity. With a public plan, we can.

Air: Do We Really Need It To Breathe?

bobcn1,
The AMA = doctors thing is really getting tiresome to me as well. As you say, a minority of doctors are in the AMA. Many AMA members are either retired MDs or students (I bet they give students free or reduced memberships rates to suck them in).
In reality, the majority of doctors not only want the "public option", they want the whole-socialist, kit and kaboodle, government-run, system:
-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/iu-ius061509.php
-
For some reason, this uncomfortable fact is rarely mentioned in health care articles. I could pose all sorts of hypothesis why; ranging from graft and corruption, to ignorance, to pure evil...but I am feeling too beat down to get into it.
The AMA is clown shoes. They used to protect big tobacco and were the only professional society in the country to endorse Barry Goldwater. Obviously the haven't gotten less wingy or hateful.

Sean - I'm with you on that. I don't understand why people don't understand that the stupid forms and wrangling over whether to cover this or that costs a lot of money. Cover people and the ancillary costs drop dramatically. Limit (but don't eliminate) the situations where sueing for malpractice is appropriate, and the explosion of CYA medical tests will drop dramatically, and so will the costs.