The Bottom Line: Gov't control of health care carries too much risk to the patient
Dan Clements
Issue date: 9/8/09 Section: Opinion
A public option could rely on tax dollars to stay afloat. Investors operated under the assumption that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-sponsored enterprises like a public option would be) would receive public support if they faced financial trouble. Now, Fannie and Freddie are still alive in spite of their atrocious business decisions. Also, private insurers must pay the price given by health care providers but a public option could force health care providers to accept a lower-than-market payment like Medicare does. Doing so only stifles innovation and increases costs for everyone else as those providers must make up for lost revenue.
These unfair advantages would only lead to a government-monopoly of the health insurance market.
If such a plan were enacted, millions of Americans would be immediately forced onto it. Health care costs employers more and more per worker each year and if a public option becomes available, then many employers would be inclined, in my opinion, to drop coverage for a significant number of people. With such unfair advantages, a government-run health insurance entity could quickly become the sole insurer for all Americans.
Such a system is desirable for many who believe health care to be an inalienable right but with economic consequences thatwould be disastrous. Monopolies fail at developing new and innovative ways to lower prices and increase quality. Instead, costs would be controlled via restricting the supply of health care. The public health insurers we do already have Medicare and Medicaid are already threatening to drown us in debt.
There are much better ways to increase competition and drive down the cost of health insurance without the creation of a public option. If Congress is serious about reform, they should instead look at ways to enhance the insurance market, not undercut it.
For example, Americans could be allowed to purchase health plans across state lines, states could decrease the number of mandates on health plans and we could cap punitive damage awards. However, a public option carries with it far too many risks that outweigh the few benefits.
These unfair advantages would only lead to a government-monopoly of the health insurance market.
If such a plan were enacted, millions of Americans would be immediately forced onto it. Health care costs employers more and more per worker each year and if a public option becomes available, then many employers would be inclined, in my opinion, to drop coverage for a significant number of people. With such unfair advantages, a government-run health insurance entity could quickly become the sole insurer for all Americans.
Such a system is desirable for many who believe health care to be an inalienable right but with economic consequences thatwould be disastrous. Monopolies fail at developing new and innovative ways to lower prices and increase quality. Instead, costs would be controlled via restricting the supply of health care. The public health insurers we do already have Medicare and Medicaid are already threatening to drown us in debt.
There are much better ways to increase competition and drive down the cost of health insurance without the creation of a public option. If Congress is serious about reform, they should instead look at ways to enhance the insurance market, not undercut it.
For example, Americans could be allowed to purchase health plans across state lines, states could decrease the number of mandates on health plans and we could cap punitive damage awards. However, a public option carries with it far too many risks that outweigh the few benefits.
Be the first to comment on this story