Comments on: Discuss: Health Care Without a Public Option?

By: Name

Name — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:09:13 +0000

While it many of the benefits offered by a public option are highly desirable, we cannot blindly add it to healthcare reform without a bit of consideration. First off, a public option would provide much needed affordable healthcare to the 46 million with no health insurance. Many argue that a public option would reduce cost of health insurance by causing more competition in that area. One major problem exists. In economics, a principle called “dumping” can severely hurt the competition. Consider, Company A is a small, local, family-run business, whereas Company B is a huge multi-international corporation. Company A and B compete on the same front, however, producing the same goods. In the region where Company A distributes, they undercut Company B’s price by a small, yet significant amount. Company B realizes the threat Company A poses. In consequence, Company B lowers the price to below their own cost, knowing they will gain it back. Company A is unable to lower their prices any further then current prices. Unfortunately, the laws of the free market take over, and Company A folds. What does that leave us with? One company. Company B. Company B now has exclusive hold on the market and can dictate prices as they wish. The United States Government, which has (basically) limitless funds, could transform into Company B. The US Govt. could lower prices so much as to force other health insurers to tank. When this happens, the public “option” translates into public health insurance.
At first glance, a centralized health insurance would seem to prove more efficient, but at further examination Government run healthcare would be slow and inefficient. The efficiency standard would be on par with this scenario. You are headed to a country, (I don’t know, maybe, India). Obviously, you need to convert your USDs into Indian rupees. Imagine, you hand the money to the clerk, and she leaves the airport to change your money. She goes to a local restaurant, purchases a restaurant gift card, than auctions it off on Ebay and receives the amount she paid for it. She than uses that money to buy a “Home Depot” gift card which she uses to purchase tools. After that, she sells the goods to a friend, then wires the money to a man in India. The man in India uses the money to buy Indian goods, which he sells in India and obtains Indian Rupees, which he mails back to the clerk. After that, the clerk hands the money back to you. Healthcare does a similar thing. It takes your tax money, puts in the system for an extended period of time and comes back to you in the form of healthcare. Unfortunately, the system will be laden with bureaucracy. By the times your claims are accepted, you would have to be paying the death tax.
The last, yet maybe most important view to consider is that of standards. As of now, the United States is the pinnacle of medical excellence. If the Government becomes the only healthcare provider, special interests groups could easily affect who and what is covered. The US Government could also dictate lower standards in order to lower costs. A yearly physical is no longer needed, a bi-annual physical is sufficient. Scenarios like this are never-ending. In short, a public option could topple us from medical excellence.
So, while a public option could deal with many immediate needs, it also presents many long range problems.

By: Name

Name — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:09:13 +0000

By: bedwards09

bedwards09 — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:52:31 +0000

Beat me to this one Clint. I think there is still a possibility for a public option. Democrats won't let there be no bill passed however. If it comes down to having no public option but other necessary cost cutting and enhanced coverage programs. It will get pushed through as it.