NYT Editorial: A Public Plan for Health Insurance?

[ProSense]

Editorial

A Public Plan for Health Insurance?

Published: April 6, 2009

President Obama has rightly called for sweeping health care reform and charged Congress with coming up with a program. Expect a tough political fight.

Already one of the most contentious issues is whether to include a new public plan option to compete with private insurance plans. Many Republicans deride it as “government-run health care” and a step toward “socialized medicine.” Democrats find the notion appealing — even of vital importance.

A new public plan — to offer consumers greater choice, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and underlying medical costs — seems worth trying.

<...>

Many reformers suggest that a public plan be modeled on Medicare. If crafted correctly, it would provide a valuable option for people who don’t trust private insurers to have a patient’s interest at heart and would offer a safe haven should private plans abandon a market, leaving their subscribers stranded. It would also serve as a competitive yardstick for measuring the performance of private plans.

A public plan might do a better job of slowing the growth of health care costs, although Medicare has not been notably successful in that regard. The public plan would almost certainly have lower administrative costs. And it could probably force doctors and hospitals to accept lower reimbursements than they negotiate with private insurers, allowing the public plan to charge lower premiums and attract more customers.

more

[redqueen]

1. Nice!

A new public plan is neither the cornerstone of health care reform nor the death knell of private insurance. It should be tried as one element of comprehensive reform. If, over time, a vast majority decides the government plan is superior, so be it.

I can hardly believe it... but this actually seems like... progress!

[ProSense]

3. It does appear to be progress. n/t

[redqueen]

6. There's a bill in CO House, a bill in the US Senate to match HR676...

no Harry and Louise style pushback though... not yet. Or not that I'm aware of.

[antigop]

2. Wow! Thanks for posting. n/t

[AllyCat]

4. I thought the Republicans were all about personal choice/freedom

You'd think they'd like the fact that people could choose their plan, choose their doctors. Hmmmm... could it be that they are worried that everyone will pick the plan with actual choice, better care, and lower costs (the public plan)? Of course the blue dogs will also hate that plan, it will get in the way of profits for their corporate masters.

Medicare has not really reined in costs that much in part, because it usually insures those most likely to have chronic health issues. If that pool were widened to include a bunch of healthy and/or young folks, it would get considerably cheaper.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Or the public plan could be the turfing site for everyone the privates don't want.

If private plans are allowed to cherry pick that is exactly what they will do. The public plan will then have huge costs and not be able to offer competitive rates.

[Kalyke]

7. On the other hand, the public plan, with the power of the federal

government behind it, might be able to negotiate much better rates from doctors and hospitals.

Medicare and Medicaid already pretty much handle "everyone the privates don't want" because they are geared toward the poor and aging, who generally have more health issues. And, they still do better to keep costs down than private health care insurance companies.