Private Health Insurers Can't Compete With the "Public Option": Medicare

[babylonsister]

Private Health Insurers Can't Compete With the "Public Option": Medicare
— By James Ridgeway | Wed May 20, 2009 12:08 PM PST


In case you had any doubts, here’s the real reason why insurance companies don’t want health care reform to include a so-called public option: These champions of freemarket capitalism know that they simply can’t compete with a government-run plan.

The insurance lobby is already trying to scare people off the idea of a public option, warning that the government will leave all of us to die slowly and painfully as we try to wade through its bloated bureaucracy. (One example of the industry’s PR efforts appears at the end of this post.) But the truth is that on a level playing field, the government would probably drive private insurers out of business, because it can deliver health care more effectively and efficiently than any profit-driven corporation.

This isn’t something we need to speculate about, since we already have a government-run health plan on which to base comparisons: Medicare. For years, studies have shown a high level of satisfaction among Medicare beneficiaries. Last week, a new study released by the Commonwealth Fund revealed how Medicare measures up against private plans. It was bad news for the insurance industry.

Elderly Medicare beneficiaries are more satisfied with their health care, and experience fewer problems accessing and paying for care, than Americans with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), according to a study by Commonwealth Fund researchers….The gap between consumers’ ratings of Medicare and ESI has widened since a similar survey in 2001….

Thirty-seven percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their coverage as excellent, versus 20 percent of the employer group. Meanwhile, only 8 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries rated their insurance as “fair” or “poor,” compared with 18 percent of those with ESI.

Survey results demonstrate that Medicare beneficiaries are less likely than those with private coverage to report negative experiences with their insurance plans — including having expensive medical bills for noncovered services, being charged a lot more than insurance would pay, and physicians’ not taking their insurance….

Other study highlights include:

• Access to care. In spite of having poorer health and lower incomes than those with ESI, elderly Medicare beneficiaries were less likely (20 percent versus 37 percent) to report access problems due to cost, such as not filling a prescription or not visiting a doctor for a medical problem.

• Financial pressure. Despite their lower incomes, elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported fewer problems with medical bills, such as inability to pay or being contacted by collection agencies. Fifteen percent of them reported at least one of these problems, compared to 26 percent of those in the employer-coverage group. Furthermore, elderly Medicare beneficiaries were no more likely than those with ESI to be devoting 5-10 percent of their income or more to health care.

• Quality of care. Sixty-one percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries said that they had received excellent or very good care, compared to just half of those with ESI. Moreover, 57 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries were confident that they could get high-quality, safe care in the future, versus 46 percent of those in the employer group.

So, to summarize–actual consumers of the various types of health care plans say Medicare is better, easier, cheaper, and fairer than private insurance. With results like these, you have to wonder: Why do we need a private option?

more...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/05/private-health-insurers-cant-compete-public-option-medicare

[Cleita]

1. So much for all the blah, blah about free market and competition.

They sure are showing their own hypocrisy and true colors. I think we the people should insist that the public option be available for those who want it and those who need it. If the health care lobby wants to spread panic and lies, let them. It's no skin off of the government's back if a lot of people at first don't want to participate, because they don't have to show profits. They just have to be available for those who want it. At the end of the day people will see it as a better option and the for profit health care industry can die a just death IMHO.

[vaberella]

2. Don't you get it Baby---It's Single payer or bust....

And if that's the case, they're bust means our bust. I've been spending my time letting people know that there is no way that a private insurance company CAN EVER compete with a public option. Small businsesses would move their employees to the public option, people would move on their own...in the end private insurance would be shot. This is why repubs are afraid and they're private insurance knows they would have to deal with crowding out.

[ejpoeta]

3. it's so funny how we want competition to rule the day and can solve everything

until they would lose the competition. then they don't want to compete. they say people don't want single payer, but know people would go to a public option in DROVES. that's why their argument about how people don't want it is ridiculous. if that were the case they wouldn't have to worry about having a truly public option.