Home / Articles / News Features /  Why So Scared of a Public Health Insurance Plan?
  Share
Monday, June 15,2009

Why So Scared of a Public Health Insurance Plan?

It’ll expose private insurers’ profits

By Joe Conason

Within the coming weeks, Americans will begin to consider critical issues concerning the future of health care for themselves and their children, including universal coverage, taxation of benefits, computerized records and the controlling of costs. But before the debate commences in Congress and the media, big insurance and pharmaceutical companies are lobbying frantically (and spending millions of dollars) to foreclose the possibility of the most promising aspect of health care reform: a public insurance option.

After decades of denigrating government-and worshipping corporations-the idea that a public program might work as well or better than a corporate provider may well sound counterintuitive to many Americans. How can government, which is so widely believed to do nothing well while wasting enormous sums, possibly be expected to outperform the highly efficient, supremely managed and profitably motivated corporate sector? Wouldn't we be better off if we simply entrust the provision of health care to the insurance industry? How can we trust those Washington bureaucrats with our health?

Actually, many consumers have learned by now that those questions are misleading at best. They know, for instance, that trusting a health insurance company is likely to be an expensive mistake. They know, too, that corporate bureaucrats can be even more ruthless in denying help to a beleaguered individual or family than those who work in government.

Studies have repeatedly shown that patient satisfaction with Medicare, the quintessential public insurance plan, is considerably higher than with private insurers among comparable age groups. And consumers understand that the drive for profits often conflicts with patient care, leading them to the conclusion that insurance and pharmaceutical corporations are excessively powerful and socially irresponsible.

Despising "Insurer Greed"

According to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the people who respond to his surveys despise "insurer greed," and are disturbed by their profitability, lack of accessibility, lack of accountability and excess of bureaucracy. There is "no love lost" between Americans and the private health insurers, he warned Republican congressional leaders as they considered how to oppose reform.

But the same arguments that have distorted the debate over health care will emerge again-especially the claim that private insurance is somehow more efficient than a public program would be, or that we cannot "afford" a public plan.

The opposite is true, as surprising as that may seem. During the decade that ended in 2006, to cite just one set of relevant statistics, the level of health spending per head (for similar benefits) grew 4.6% annually under Medicare, while spending under private health insurance rose by 7.3%. For many years, in fact, Medicare has performed better at controlling costs than private insurance companies.

One reason is simple and obvious: Eliminating profits for shareholders and management cuts out a major cost factor.

Another is less obvious: Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2% or 3%, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27% and 40%.

These basic facts have broad implications for the nation's capacity to ensure quality health coverage for all of its citizens. Private insurance has strengths as well as weaknesses, but there is no doubt that a new public plan, alongside Medicare, would become an essential yardstick-as the old New Dealers used to say-by which to measure the progress and efficiency of the private sector.

The private insurers will complain that this is "unfair" competition, but if the private sector is truly the efficient solution to our costly, wasteful and unfair health care system, then why are they so frightened of a public plan?

© 2009 Creators Syndicate Inc.


 

POST A COMMENT
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
So why destroy the best health care in the world because you don't like what insurance charges? Canada is seeing private clinics open in order to provide care for it's citizens. These are illegal but they do it anyways. many Candians come here to work and then retire in Canada all the while touting the great system they have just run away from. Have you seen the cost estimates? In the trilions and it's only in it's infancy. We did not like the days of HMO's that kept costs down and the Government you so love, passed all kind sof legislation not allowing HMO's to really manage your care. Costs skyrocketed after that as people go to the emergency room for for non emrgencies and run up thousands in bills for an ear ache when they could go to Walgreens and get care for $40 or $50. I agree that insurance should be different, but government is not the solution. If you didn't force a white male to pay for coverage of his possible pregnancy (see state statutes), and his uterine cancer and allowed insurance to have more diverse policies, you would see cost savings. You can tailor policies in all other factors of life, why not health care? I will tell you why, legislation, state and federal statutes won't allow it. Have you ever considered that a loot of uninsured choose that and pay out of pocket? I would spend some time looking at our current socialized systems, the VA and military. There was just an article today about an unknown amount of our beloved veterans who have become infected with HIV, hepatitis b and hepatitis c due to poor care at a VA. We are lucky in Milwaukee to have one of the better ones, (staffed in part by Medical College physicians), a PRIVATE medical school. Most VA's are not that lucky. Remember Walter Reed where the prsident goes? Rats running around! No thanks!!!!

 

Canadians nurses do work in the states. (snowbirds). Why not!!!! The system in Canada is far better than ours. If we didn't pay for the illegals we could save millions. The illegals get care we could only dream for. Not sure what you meant about the uterine cancer. As a female that was told that she HAD this type of cancer and hung for over 3 months for a biopsy which was negative. Explain this .......In Canada i would of been seen before.

 

It means a man should not have to pay for coverage of thing she will not get, just as a woman should not have to pay for insurance that covers them in case they get prostate cancer. Why are Canadian MDs opening private clinics to care for pts if it is so great? Look at death rates for most curable cancers across the world and you will find the US leads. When is the last time you heard of some great innovation in treatment from one of these socialized care systems? If your doctor did not push for a biopsy sooner, you should have a long talk with them. Teh physicians I work with would have made that happen much quicker than that if they thought cancer was the probable diagnosis.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
I agree with Brad. Government run health care would be a cancer to our free market, and it would compromise the speedy and quality service currently provided by our hospitals and clinics. Here is relevant piece that touches on the issue. Universal Health Care - Now Russ Feingold is a Fan

 

Again, Arod, I have not idea what baseless tripe you're pulling this stuff from.

 

 
 
Today in Milwaukee
2009-11-11
2010-03-09

Join Us at Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Flickr