Is the Public Option the Key to Healthcare Reform?

Reader Comments
Back to article

If we had an alternative option of health care cooperatives that operated more like credit unions (i.e., for the benefit of the subscribers and not for the benefit of investors), that would help minimize the costs. If subscribers all voted on rule changes and rate changes, it would provide transparency and a sense of empowerment and personal responsibility to the subscribers. It might be possible for the government to offer subsidy packages to enable people with low incomes to subscribe. The transparency and responsibility involved in such a system would give everyone an appreciation for what health care really costs and it would make it obvious that we can't have everything we want. The subscribers would have to choose how much to charge themselves and what they were willing to cover. That would make everyone highly motivated to invest in prevention and it would make everyone eager to drive down the overhead. Without transparency and responsibility, we have a system where people think that they can demand more and more, pay less, and not make much effort to take better care of themselves.

Jay Turner of CA 7:57PM July 15, 2009

I don't want anything for "free", just something affordable. I lost my insurance several years ago ( my individual plan was cancelled after i used it) and have been in a nightmare ever since. The cheapest insurance I can get comes in over $800 a month. I am 59, in generally good health, working two jobs, and still can't afford to pay that. If Obama gets this through, and it is an affordable option for those of us without employer coverage, I will be first in line next election. HELP!!!!

Catherine Kane of KY 4:16PM July 15, 2009

Good Lord! I'm a lifelong Republican, yet I have favored not just a "Public Option", but full National Medicine, since living in Europe 40 years ago. We are the ONLY country in the civilized world WITHOUT National Health Care. It should be the first purpose of government, well above military and education. We are a primitive nation, living in the past, on this issue.
PUBLIC health would be far cheaper than the current "theft option". Middlemen steal 33% of what we "spend on health". Transaction costs in Europe are just 2%! Single payer, computerized health records, the 21st Century "option".
We cover everybody one way or the other. Now, they just go to the back door of the hospital. It would be cheaper to bring the uninsured in through the front door. My business clients would return to a competitive position in the international markets, and generate new profits, without being burdened by "health care benefits". Who thought this up anyway? Why would BUSINESS be responsible for health, not government? Why not the CHURCH? Why not FAMILY? What a goofy system we have, not logical, not even sane.
Force me to buy insurance? That sounds like a tax to me. Forced profits for a non-productive insurance industry.
While we are at it, simplifying medical, why don't we go to a value added tax system, like so many others?

Tom Bardeen of CA 11:37AM July 15, 2009

Answer this. After all is said and done, how will we ensure that cost savings realized through reform measures will be passed on to the consumer? How? There are so many players in the HC world and every one will want to keep some or all of those savings for their added profit.
Remember, people don't shop for HC and buy according to price. There is no price list.
A public option will ensure that most of those savings will get to the consumer.
Will it drive private insurance companies out of business? If they offer a product that gives consumers value - no. Private Universities compete with public ones. UPS and Fed Ex compete with USPS. They offer products that people want even though they are more expensive.
Insuring everyone will have everyone paying their fair share and eliminate cost shifting. A public option will give the industry a low cost provider and keep costs down.

Matt Lehman of WI 8:46AM July 15, 2009

I do not believe that Public Healthcare is the option to the healthcare crisis. It will always be able to operate in a deficit because it receives funds from the taxpayers opposed to other privately owned insurance companies. It can also set the regulations that will make it the best option. They can also pick who to provide healthcare to. If I am over 65, then my usefulness to society isn’t as great as the 25 year old and I won’t receive the same priority. There have been people who have died while waiting for public healthcare to get treatment to them. If we get to this point we might as well legalize euthanization. We need regulation of healthcare insurance and making it so that they cannot turn down participants. Also stop all the frivolous law-suits that make doctors have to carry astronomical amounts of Mal-practice insurance which then in turn has them charging more from the patient. This in turn makes the insurance company have to cover more of the costs. It is a problem that snowballs from the government , so why would I want them to run my healthcare?

Garrett Mehal of LA 4:00PM July 10, 2009

There are so many questions here. What exactly do they mean by a "single payer system"? It sounds like we would pay our monthly premiums to the federal government, who in turn would send the premium payments to the health care insurance companies. (?) The same way an employee's premiums are collected by the employer and sent to the individual companies. Won't the government be able to collect interest on all these premiums that they're taking in, that will be invested before being paid out to the health care companies? I hope we get a lot of financial oversite on that deal.
What kind of healthcare does Congress get? If it is like the plans other state or federal employees' get, it isn't free. They pay premiums similar to the auto companies' plans and can choose what level of coverage they want.
I don't think it is clear at all that Mr. Obama wants socialized medicine. He says he doesn't and I don't see how a "single payer plan" means socialized medicine. Isn't Medicare a single payer plan?
How do illegal immigrants get free medicine? It can't be Medicare, because that's for peoople over 65 years old, besides you need a Social Security number, and you have to be a citizen to get a SS number. You have to be destitute, or disabled to get Medicaid which is a state program, not a federal one. Do the hospitals and doctors just write off their costs, which we end up paying in the forms of higher fees?
How are we subsidizing healthcare for people who can afford it, but choose not to have it?
We're trying to discuss something for which we don't have specific details.

Cathy of OH 9:49AM July 07, 2009

Obama cut down $20 from the disable at the federal level, right after Arnold cut down $30 from the disable at the state level, Medical no longer cover Eyes doctors, and soon Teeth doctors too. I think u should vote for Obama, Arnold, or Pelosi, or Boxer and Feinstein another term i don't know what are those people doing at their position so far all their freaking lunatic ideas is not working for the country and the state of CA we will be so doom if as long as they staying on power ya know those sort of thinggy that make it bad for american to live in, so we better not to vote for them another term, like uh begone evil doer

ObamaNeedSomeJuices of CA 1:57AM July 06, 2009

President Obama has made it clear that he is intent on creating a nationalized health care system in the US similar to that proposed by Hillary Clinton in 1994 and overwhelmingly rejected. Here are some comments:
1. I do not want a single payer system managed like Canada’s.
2. I do not want to see heavily subsidized federal insurance that will ultimately put private health insurance plans out of business.
3. I do not want to wait 18 weeks to see a specialist like they do in Canada.
4. I do not want to face a 604% greater risk of mortality from prostate cancer like they do in the UK.
5. I do want the same insurance at the same price the President and Congress pays.
6. I do want the same access to care that the President and Congress has.
7. I want the President and Congress to agree to accept for them selves the same health plan they are proposing for me.
8. I want illegal immigrants to be sent back to their country of origin for health care.
9. I don't want to continue to subsidize health care for families that can afford insurance but choose not to insure.
10. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, so please don’t tell me that all this additional health care will be paid for by the savings achieved from a government run program.
Yes, our current system has room for improvement, but not by the currently proposed Obama plan. I think the key to a workable plan is item 7 above. I also think we should cut costs somewhere else in the budget to pay for the increase in health care - no increase in the total budget. This country is all ready facing a fiscal disaster over deficits - see recent CBO "Long Term Budget Outlook" report. Costs of health care can be significantly reduced by providing accurate information to patients to allow more informed choices. Also patients need to have enough financial skin (% of treatment cost or high insurance premium) in the game to force a rational tradeoff. The Constitution didn't promise equal outcomes, only equal opportunity. We also need to put a lid on the outlandish costs of malpractice legal costs. The politicians should be able to live without their big donations from the Tort lawyers.

David Dodge of VA 12:54PM July 04, 2009

Before I commit to a complete overhaul of our Health Insurance. I want to know a few things
1) of the 50 million or so that do not have insurance in our country. a) How many of those are illegal aliens? b) How many of those people CHOOSE not to have insurance because of a desire to live a certain lifestyle (If you cannot afford insurance you shouldn't be able to afford big screen TV's or $100.00 hair and nail appointments once a month)or because they are young do not feel it a necessity right now. c) Decided (or Lack any willpower and either don't believe in or don't use birth control) to have 5 to 15 kids while already on welfare.
2) What (& where) is the information on how they came up with the fact that we currently rank 37th among industrialized nation on healthcare? (What are the deciding factors, what hurts or helps this rating, is that solely based on the number of insured, or are the actual medical procedures taken into consideration? What about time between initial diagnosis and treatment? Or is this just another meaningless number/statistic thrown out by our government, like projected jobs created/saved?)Also, and this scares me most of all, when asked by a news reporter how can Obama guarantee that people currently on their employers plan that nothing will change except lower premiums? Robert Gibbs response was "You shouldn't take the President's words so literally! (That more or less proves to me that the current plan being presented in the White House right now is equivalent to the stimulus bill that had to passed immediately so we wouldn't have our unemployment rate rise above 8.5%) There has to come a point when reality sets in, that these nice wonderful ideas where everybody has everything and everybody gets along. Where nobody ever does without, and nobody ever resorts to violence anymore. It sounds nice in theory but the money has to come from somewhere and civility is 2-way street.
Personally, I believe our current system works and has worked for a very long time. I will agree that the insurance companies and the medical industry as a whole have proven to be (left unchecked and unregulated) a greedy, beaurocratic, nightmare for some. If we fix our current system we would be much better off than letting the same people who run the DMV & the Post Office take control. (If we simplify/Unify the billing system so it doesn't take a small country of people to get it done, Curb malpractice suits, and stop wasting money on government grants to figure out a way 75 year olds can still have sex, and actually do some positive cancer research. Why is necessary to advertise Enzyte (Smiling Bob) during Spongebob Squarepants. There are God only knows how many inefficient & unnecessary procedures being done to drive up our medical costs as a whole. While I do believe the Government should set some regulations for the Medical Industry to follow, I do not believe that they are capable handling the task without massive tax increases.

Ymerej of SC 4:07PM July 03, 2009

Of the 2.5 trillion dollars we spend each year on health care, insurance companies get nearly a thrid. They run up costs to providers by prolonged debate on what they will pay for. That practice results in huge expense for providers in having staff to deal with insurance bureaucrats. Non medical bureaucrats by industry are no different than government employees. Those against government plan like industry types controlling their medical affairs rather than doctors. A PBS documentary on the Canadian system highlighted a Canadian hospital that conducted 32000 surgical procedures a year. Its billing department was in a single room with a handful of employees. It was said a comparable U.S. hospital would have a department of at least 800 dealing with a multitude of health plans by dozens of insurers. It is easy to see that billing alone could had thousands of dollars to the cost of a procedure. The claim that there are waits for some non-emergency procdures in Canada is generally true but the necessary procedures are eventually done. We do not have that wait because people who are uninsured dor not get the service. Our long waits are in the emergency ward were uninsured go, sometimes to die.

Kenneth Viste of ID 11:02AM July 03, 2009