No "Public Option": Taking the Reform out of Healthcare Reform

Sigh…

It is reported that Pres. Obama hinted that a government option was not exactly the whole focus of health care reform…

That may be true, but I think healthcare reform loses serious teeth without that as a provision.  It seems like Obama may be softening his position to opt for safer routes which can win votes from Republicans, but most importantly centrist Dems.

Its a shame really, but I understand.  There are serious grievances.  I cannot see this being an intiative that will save so much money that the government won’t have to increase taxes.  A while ago, the Congressional Budget Office quoted a staggering figure for how much Obama’s health care plan would cost over time.  I also understand that having another option will fuel competition with other private insurance options.  To say it would not is silly.  If someone comes on the scene offering the same service, I am giong to have to be aware of them and outperform them to stay relevant and competitive.

From there it is indeed possible that people currently happy with their employer’s private insurance option will have to use the government option if the employer decides to change their policy – which would make sense if the government option is cheaper.  Why spend money on this option, if the public option saves your company money?  And then for those individuals that just choose not to purchase health care (I don’t know why, lifestyle decision I guess), having certain groups of Americans being obligated to purchase SOME form of health care does force people to do something they would not want to do.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  This health care reform is not going to make everyone better off because of its existence.  Insurance companies will suffer for sure, doctors may take a hit in pay because  costs of procedures will likely be driven down, and some will grudgingly have to accept this new healthcare when they were content with an older system.

However, this is about quality of life.  And I do not believe a government option will reduce the quality of care available to everyone currently.  It will at the very least maintain the quality of care while opening up the possibility of health care to more individuals by reducing the costs of having a health care plan.  Other options are being discussed such as the co-op alternative, but I don’t think any option will be near as effective at reducing health care costs.

If this was really about losing quality in the care of our citizens or some well-disguised government takeover, I would be right up there trying to block this.  It isn’t though.  Money will be lost by businesses and in the form of taxes – yet taxes serve the purpose of paying for those things that increase utility for the public good.  And I think that increasing access should take precedent over the cries of special interests groups and lobbyists protecting “private interests”. And the this idea of government takeover?  Please, these people weren’t crying foul as our own government tried to subvert the law and expand their own powers between 2000-2008.  Let that argument go.  We are not about to turn into Russia first of all, and second – FIGURE OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM BEFORE YOU KEEP MAKING THAT STUPID FEAR-MONGERING CAUSE-EFFECT STATEMENT! 

This idea of health care reform without a public option is like a tiger with no claws and teeth.  I guess if we gnaw on this issue enough with our gums or pounce on it year after year with dead weight, perhaps the system will show some signs of change :-/

Popularity: -0% [?]