I don't know how closely people are following the health care debate, but it seems that Congress will probably begin voting on bills relatively soon. The most controversial (and in my opinion, most important) part of the debate is about the public option, a government run insurance plan that would compete with the private insurance companies.
Supporters of the public option argue that in America's current system, insurance companies overcharge for coverage and cherry-pick the healthiest customers, making it impossible for the poor or ill to get coverage. We pay the most in the world for health care, yet our life expectancy is lower than many other countries and the World Health Organization ranked our system 37th in the world. The government can insure these people for less, negotiate for lower prices, set standards for high-quality care and force private insurers to measure up.
Opponents have raised a number of objections. They argue that Americans do get the best care--by some measures, such as cancer survival rates, we really do lead the world. Many object that nobody can compete with a company that writes the rules, funds itself with its competitors' taxes and has no obligation to make a profit. Government attempts at cost control, they say, will inevitably lead to reduced quality and rationing of care.
Personally, I am opposed to a public option, a position I like to think I arrived at after weighing all the information carefully. I'm sure some others in Academy have strong opinions about this. I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do have strong opinions about this. First, I personally believe that the public option is one of the best things that could happen to America. First, it would decrease the costs of health care for low-income americans. It does this in a few ways. First, it would reduce administrative costs because not only would the people running it be paid less than CEOs and executives, there are also several processes that private plans go through that the public plan wouldn't have to. Second, it would reduce the costs of medicare and medicaid because people would be able to get health care from a more efficient source. Third, it would switch people from getting emergency care in hospitals to getting preventative care with their private doctors. Finally, it would reduce the drain on small businesses because the cost of their health care would go down, which would allow them to compete more effectively in a global market.
ReplyDeleteEven if our health care is better, that doesn't mean anything if a large chunk of people can't get it. We should make sure people can get health care if they want it.
I agree with you Conner. I believe that a public option would not ultimately be the best solution. Aside from the fact that its unsettling to me to have the government involved in my personal health*, I feel like we don't have the money right now to initiate such a program.
ReplyDeleteThe main agruement behind the public option is that it would drive down costs because of competition. States hold a virtual monopoly on healthcare, and currently you cannot insure people across state lines, but what if we changed that? If we had national competition for healthcare wouldn't that drive down the costs too? If we simply allowed insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines like they do auto insurance, we could drive down costs and insure low income Americans without involving the government. Conservatives are happy because of more capitialism and less government, and liberals should be happy because we provide the public with low cost healthcare.
*I realize it is an option I don't have to choose, but it has the potential to drive private insurers out of business and then I could be forced to take on a government option.