Public vs. Private
I read this opinion piece about the current health care proposal of a public insurance system being reviewed by Congress and started to consider the main question being asked: why should private insurers fear the proposal of a public insurance system? The article had some good thoughts but, in my opinion, the author didn’t give an adequate answer to his primary question. I’ll give you my take on the issue here.
From what I can deduce, private insurers may fear the current proposal because a public insurance system would be cheaper for the insured, meaning the private insurers prices would have to be lowered in order to adequately compete. But one of the main reasons the private insurers prices are currently so high is that they need to buffer against today’s uninsured. The fact that uninsured persons still use the healthcare system without being able to pay for their care translates into an increased price for that care across the board (a cost that private insurers currently have to roll into their price). If a public healthcare system is created, those costs will decrease allowing the private insurers to better compete with the public plan. The problem then becomes the transfer of the cost for the publicly insured into higher taxes for the citizentry.
The money to pay for a public health care plan is the main sticking point: those who most need this plan are often the least able to pay for it. Given the current make up of Congress, I expect the cost of this public insurance to be pinned on the middle and upper classes in the form of increased taxes. I don’t believe in paying for the needs of others. Those who don’t make enough money to provide adequate health care for themselves should not force those who can take care of themselves into an involuntary position as social provider. The screening process for such a public program shoud be rigorous enough to determine actual need based on an inability to work and provide for yourself (something the government should have plenty of experience with by now, and yes, you can read that as a jab at welfare).
The private insurance companies should have little to fear. Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and I guarantee that the service and quality of healthcare will be worse for those under the public plan. The private insurers will remain the providers of quality care, probably at less cost to the insurer. The ones who will bear this burden are the taxpayer, mainly those who want to maintain their level of care by remaing privately insured, but find themselves in debt for the health care needs of those that choose to use the public option.
June 25th, 2009 at 19:30
Actually, one of the problems facing private insurers if the government were to establish a public insurance is profit. Private insurers are required to show a profit in accordance with government regulations, but the government would not have to do that, so they would be able to go further and further in debt, while the private insurers wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for lower prices.
June 25th, 2009 at 23:05
This issue is so tricky. I think of our forefather and our natural rights as humans. The first of that being the right to LIFE. In America I agree with the fact that everyone should have health care and have the ability to get health care, which we do, but we can’t all pay for it. Health care IS expensive, but I don’t think Universal Health Care at the expense of someone else is the answer. We need the government to gain control within its own laws to reign in medical malpractice suits that make prices high. We need to reign in illegal immigration for those who use our hospitals but cant and dont pay the bills. We need to also get rid of medicare and medicade that also dont pay up. Hospitals are left in the red all the time because of abuse of the system. We need to crack down at the root of the problem. This is another expamle of the government just throwing money at something to think it will solve all the problems, but instead will create more because lets face it, poly sci majors don’t know anything about medicine, or the car industry, or investment banking.
June 26th, 2009 at 15:45
Nobody wants to pay for the health care of those that won’t support themselves. But the fact is that we’re either paying for it through increased insurance costs (current private system) or we’ll pay for it with increased taxes (public system).
Our choices are to pay for it in some way or make them go without.
June 29th, 2009 at 22:46
I am a little confused on the difference between actual need and an inability to work and provide for yourself.
Many people work full-time jobs that don’t provide health insurance. These are generally low-wage jobs and in many cases these individuals can’t afford to purchase health insurance in the market. Is this what you mean by need? People who work but still can’t afford insurance?
June 30th, 2009 at 02:24
The statement was aimed at those that are unable to work due to disability or old age but as mentioned above are often the ones that require the most medical care. These are the people that “most need this plan” but “are often the least able to pay for it.”
The point is that if the government assumes the role of doling out health insurance paid for by taxpayer money they should, at the very least, ease the accessibility of this insurance to those that can’t live without the care, and limit the plan’s benefits to those who are more able to obtain care by paying for it themselves.