Myth 1: It protects private insurance.
Reality: It allows private insurance to compete with a strong public option. A quick read of the bill verifies this.
This is just parsing the same circumstance from different directions, along the lines of whether the glass is half full or half empty. HR 3200 does indeed protect private insurance companies from the single most devastating-to-their-business-model reform: single payer universal health care that makes private insurance unnecessary.
Recall that the original rationale for insurance-- whether auto, home, or health-- was to buffer individuals from the risk of expensive circumstances by pooling the risk across wide segments of the population. That model is only partly successful for health insurance because just about EVERYONE eventually gets sick or injured. That still allows for sufficient risk management as long as the pool is large enough and as long as the primary objective is to provide services to insurance holders. Now, however, the primary mission of most insurance companies is to enrich their stockholders and executives-- a mission that is largely incompatible with the original objective of managing risks for subscribers-- the only way to maximize profits is to minimize risk, and the best way to do that is to withhold coverage, exclude subscribers, raise costs for services, and so on.
Allowing private insurance companies to "compete with a strong public option" is neoliberal speak for "hobbling the public option so that it will not encroach egregiously into the profits of private companies." Since the behavior of those very private insurance companies is largely responsible for the current health care crisis, I don't especially feel the need to keep them in business by protecting them from the best health care delivery model anyone has yet proposed.
Myth 2: It is too expensive for people to afford.
Reality: The premiums are scaled down to 0% of income for those who can't afford it. And to protect people from regional costs of living differences, it applies local changes to those rates and allows the states to assist.
Incomes under 133% of the poverty level pay nothing. From the bill directly, we have the following scale...
Single payer universal health care will SAVE us billions of dollars annually, and the savings can be used to fund the program entirely. There is absolutely no reason for ANYONE to pay out of pocket for basic health care services in this country. Many of us will likely lose our employer provided insurance benefits if a public option insurance plan is available that we can buy instead-- and many of us will be financially WORSE off for it. I don't have an additional 10 or 11 percent of disposable monthly income to buy government mandated health insurance-- but that will be my only real choice if my employer shifts that burden to me.
For considerably less money I could get free or nearly free health care under a single payer system. THAT'S the comparison that's meaningful to me, not how the proposed HR3200 public option compares to the robber baron private insurance costs.
Myth 3: We'll never have single payer if this plan goes through.
Reality: This plan allows Americans to decide if they want single payer. If the majority of people and employers opt for the public option (and it can be foreseen that they will unless private insurance companies drop their rates), then the public option will effectively be single payer. If private insurance companies lower their premiums in order to survive and compete, then the bill will have succeeded in rate control via market competition. If private insurance companies fail, then we will be left with a single payer system.
No, we'll be left with a government administered health insurance plan modeled after the current private insurance business-- one that is intentionally structured to allow "competition" in the current dysfunctional marketplace. Such competition can only occur if the public option is not as good as simple, straightforward single payer universal health care. The fact that it has a price tag independent of taxes is reason enough to reject it. Real single payer makes this whole discussion unnecessary. It's just there, a universal safety net for all Americans, regardless of social class or ability to pay.
More important, though, is that this is an historic opportunity. I simply cannot think of any good reason not to use it to establish the best health care reforms we can-- reforms that we envision lasting for the next several generations, at least. I do not share your apparent faith in politicians to revisit the issue soon if it can be improved, especially since we know how to improve it NOW and have the opportunity. Why not do it right the first time?
Myth 5: Not everyone can participate.
Reality: Every person in the U.S. can participate. If you have a plan via your employer, your employer can decide if they want to switch the plan over to the Public Option or if they want to continue to pay the private insurance company their negotiated premiums. Either way employees who are covered will remain covered by some plan. Most people look at a company's benefits packages when they consider taking a job with that company. If your employer doesn't provide coverage, you can go to the public option.
Cost is the crux of this issue. If employers continue to provide medical insurance, we're still doing essentially what we're doing now, but with one more player in the mix. The current model is not sustainable for many businesses, and they want OUT of the insurance provision business. Free or nearly free single payer universal health care makes this whole issue moot. Businesses do not need to provide insurance at all under that model, and employees will not see their health care costs raised as the burden of paying for health insurance is transferred to them. Indeed, under single payer, the costs for EVERYONE would decline precipitously.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
