Politically Correct: The public option

Column photo

By Ben Cohen, Chet Compton, Dan Thompson

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Soon enough, those of us still on our parents’ insurance plans will not be able to get that coverage. A public option would, at the very least, guarantee us coverage until we could afford it ourselves.

The biggest complaint I’ve heard about the option tends to be that it would force people out of their better coverage. This is usually based on pure conjecture and backed by private insurance companies afraid of the impending competition. And that is what the public option will be to them: competition. There is no end of American society from this plan. There is no bankrupting of the medical system. There is merely a new player in health insurance.

Those who oppose “socialized” insurance will be required to opt in to it. That is the point of an “option.” If you can afford private insurance and want it, it will still be yours.

— Cohen is a Topeka senior in political science.

Students have a number of compelling reasons to support the Democrats’ health insurance reform, and it is in their interest that a public option be included in that plan. People between the ages of 19 to 29 are the most uninsured age group in the country, and 56 percent of the uninsured in this group are full-time workers.

Significantly, the proposed reform would allow young people to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26. For those students who do not have that option, the government would provide subsidies based upon income level for individuals to purchase health insurance.

If the government mandates that individuals have health insurance, as the current plans do and should do, then it is imperative that these individuals have an alternative to purchasing a plan through a private insurer. This means the government must provide some form of public option.

— Thompson is a Topeka senior in economics.

Here are three reasons why students should oppose the public option.

First, its projected cost exceeds $1 trillion. It is hard to comprehend this much money. If you spent a dollar per second, it would take you 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion.

How are we going to pay for it? President Obama says we will pay for most of it by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” in the system. Very few people on either side of the isle are naive enough to believe that.

Secondly, health care represents one sixth of our economy. Our government has proven it can’t even run a railroad. Mixing private healthcare decisions with government bureaucrats is a dangerous prescription for both our personal health and the health of our economy.

Third, it will lead to long lines and a rationing of care. How can you insure 50 million more patients with no extra doctors when there is already a shortage?

— Compton is a Wichita senior in political science.

Comments

connerm (anonymous) says...

Ben: Most Americans don't choose their insurance plans. I have seen this line (if you like your current insurance, you can keep it) repeated many times. We have an employer-based system. The idea that people will lose their employer-based coverage isn't based on conjecture. Given the option between a tax + dumping their employees into the government-run plan and paying for their employees' health insurance, many companies will choose the tax. This means that the company has to spend less per employee and can now get backed up by the taxpayer.

The government run option is "merely a new player?" In order to fairly boost competition in any venue, all players must be operating under the same set of rules. How would a high school basketball team compete against the Jayhawks + steroids? How can insurance companies possibly compete with an organization that is subsidized by an outside source like tax dollars and run by the people who make the rules?

Dan: To get more people in our age group insured, we must give them incentive to do so. A huge proportion of uninsured young people (around half depending on who you talk to) are uninsured by choice. Take away state-government mandated provisions to plans and the cost of plans will go down by 20-30%. Allow the purchase of plans across state lines and costs will go down further. Take away the federal tax on individual, customized plans and people will be able to purchase their own plans rather than relying on employers.

We are the cheapest group of individuals in the country when it comes to health insurance. Teaching people the benefits of purchasing it and allowing plans that are not too expensive is the way to winning a huge portion of the battle.

Most insured people are satisfied with their health insurance. Let's not punish them for the sake of the 10 million or so who truly can't afford to purchase insurance and instead find a way to insure these people that doesn't interfere with the general population's plans.

October 27, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

hooligan (anonymous) says...

Chet, strawman much?

October 27, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

dlowell (anonymous) says...

Mr. Compton, simply put, there is no evidence for your claims about what might happen in the future, if a public option is passed.
Also, "our government has proven it can't even run a railroad?" Really, that argument? And the insurance have proven they're purely profit-driven. Honestly, if I have to buy my own insurance I'd rather purchase it through a non-profit insurer that is legally bound to cover me despite any "pre-existing conditions" and all that other bullcrap that insurers screw people over concerning.
There is no evidence to support your claim about "the rationing of care". Health care rationing doesn't exist even in countries with a single-payer system, like Canada, or those with socialized medicine, like the UK. And the public option is a far more free-market option than either of those. You sound like the Investor's Business Daily editorial that claimed a disabled genius like Stephen Hawking would never have been let live in a system of socialized medicine....despite the fact that Stephen Hawking was born and has lived his whole life in the UK, and receives his health care through the NHS.
I'll believe the $1 trillion claim when it comes from the CBO.

October 27, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

dlowell: "There is no evidence to support your claim about 'the rationing of care'".

There are already two government operated health programs. These programs have been long standing and are called Medicare and Medicaid. I'm not sure if you've heard about it but there have been major cutbacks in both programs. Even after having initiated Medicare Part D and allowing the elderly access to prescription medications the coverage of both programs is shrinking. Medications and services covered have been refined and whittled down, reimbursement to health care professionals has been cut back, and the premiums the elderly must pay have risen. All of this has occurred because the government is unable to properly fund the two programs.

And that's just for the elderly...well Medicaid isn't just for the elderly... My point is that our government can't run these programs without cutting back on coverage (ie 'rationing of care') due to lack of funds. How is it that our government is going to be able to properly fund a public option? Tell me, honestly, how the 'public option' will end up any different than Medicare and Medicaid? Sure it may run well for a little while but in the end there's going to be cutbacks in coverage, reimbursement, and an increase in annual premiums.

I'm sorry dlowell, but a 'rationing of care' is very likely to happen here.

This is not to say, however, that the private insurance companies are saints. No, no. Not by any means are they even close to being what someone might consider 'good' corporations. Private insurance companies have been paying their top dogs millions upon millions while dumping patients and services covered. While it would be a slap in the face of capitalism, I almost (almost...but not quite yet) feel like there need to be salary caps on the CEO's of today. As they have demonstrated a complete lack of control of their companies' budgets and fiscal responsibilities and simply want nothing other than to please themselves.

I do not agree with the public option on the basis of the fiscal obligation it will create. Instead maybe we should target drug companies and their high prices for new meds? Maybe we should target the outrageous salaries of the insurance CEO's and recirculate that money into the insurance thereby decreasing premiums or allowing more services to be covered? Maybe we could invest in revamping 'the system' and drop all the abusers who use the system because they are too lazy to try to make on their own?

I don't know what the exact answer will be or could be. I just think the public option is bound to fail and will drive the deficit further into the ground.

October 27, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

I say we put Mike and Chet on the debate team. We're sure to win.

October 27, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

hooligan (anonymous) says...

My bad, I don't have time for an extended analysis.

October 27, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement