Competition, the Public Option, and the Healthcare Industry

August 28, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

While private plans would most likely have much better customer service, the government plan would be dictating prices and would be cheaper [The Case for Postal-Style Healthcare, usnews.com]. That is the competitive advantage, but it is truly insidious. Doctors in this system would become disenchanted government workers with no incentive to excel. After the mounds of regulation and paperwork—see Medicare and Medicaid—and throw in the loss of financial incentive and the quality of people going into medicine would fall off the map. Having the government dictate what you can be paid and how you will practice would turn off anyone with a decent IQ. Why would anyone train for 10 or 12 years, incur massive student debt, and then go work for the government at mandated reduced rates.

Comment by Tim Holroyd of VA

Great article, Rick Newman. I think private interests are against a universal healthcare plan in the same way they are against a universal mail service. Private enterprises don't want competition from any government-run business. That's how the banks and airlines got deregulated, because private enterprise got their way with their friends in politics...and we all know how successful that has been. Why not use Medicare as a great model? The only problem with Medicare is the unscrupulous doctors who bill Medicare with unnecessary or fraudulent charges. It is in the same way the Defense Department can rip off the monies appropriated to them. The abuses are what are so objectionable, not the program. People services guaranteed by the government make for a better standard of living because it creates competition with private enterprise and this is a good thing...a very good thing.

Comment by Lori of FL

The biggest problem with the argument that private insurers should be able to compete with a public option is that the public option would pay doctors and hospitals 20, 30, or even 40 percent less than the private insurers. The public plan could be up to 40 percent less efficient and still offer prices below what the private market could offer. The private market would collapse. The article is interesting and a nice counter point of view. However, the discussions about the collapse of the private market aren't Chicken Little exaggerations. The issues would snowball as doctors and hospitals tried to recoup some of the shortfalls from public option payments from private insurers on the business they still had. The gap would further increase, and health insurers would be out of business. A public option could be required to pay hospitals and doctors at prevailing private market rates. However, I think that would only work initially. Eventually, legislation would be put forth to make an exception to this rule and payments would revert to Medicare or even Medicaid levels.

Comment by Ross of CO

The problem with the argument is that private companies are not allowed to compete with the USPS for first-class mail. The USPS is a monopoly that the government will not allow competition with. So that model transferred to the healthcare system will result in another monopoly that the government will not allow competition in. This country is doomed if the government sets up another monopoly.

Comment by Nick of TN

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It was extremely interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such themes and everything connected to them. I would like to read more on that site soon. By the way, rather nice design this site has, but how about changing it once in a few months?

Mary Meetington

city escorts of AL 10:45PM July 06, 2010

Meaningful healthcare reform can begin without a government option. Having work on both the provider and the payor side of the business I strongly feel that incremental change is the only change that will be acceptable to the American people.

Personal responsibility needs to be at the heart of reform as well. Health insurance (after all that is what we are really talking about here) need to maintain a balance of tradeoffs. If one accepts that healthcare insurance is indeed a right, then there must be certain responsibilities that come with this right. This will not necessarily be popular with the masses.

As an example, car insurance rates are established by a number of factors such as age, driving record, credit scores (this is somewhat controversial but a fact), the use of seat belts etc. where the insured lives and other factors. If a driver receives a lot of tickets or even worse a DUI, the rates go thru the sky. These are factors that can be controlled by the policy holder. If the policy holder acts irresponsibly, rates become a big issue.

How about applying this to healthcare insurance. If a person is significantly overweight, sedentary, smokes heavily and has know health problems such as diabetes etc. then should the burden of this person’s health issues be born by society…..or should this person be required to take some measurable actions to improve their health status? Does the government then have the right to demand that this individual participate in programs and activities that create measurable improvements in their health status or else…..or else what? How is this any different from the driver that has many reckless driving tickets and a few DUI? Where does the personal responsibility meet the right to healthcare? Are we really prepared to address these types of issues? Is the answer health promotion? I think not since it has not worked in the decades that it has been out there. Eighty percent of all healthcare expenses are incurred by twenty percent of the population.

How will this all be paid for? The numbers that the president is currently promoting regarding what will be saved by curbing waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid systems is far from reality. Just ask the CBO. We have heard this story over and over. Someone always needs to be demonized when staking out their position in the healthcare debate. Let’s talk reality, not motivational speeches. To assert that only 5% of the population would enroll in the public option is not a statement that should be made with a straight face. Anyone that understands how the system works knows that that number will be exceeded easily in the first year. Such an option would be subsidized and not reflect the actual associated costs. It would quickly cannibalize the competition and become the dominant health plan of choice. BTW, the healthcare system is currently funded by the government via Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care etc. That is over 60% of the current market of insureds in America. It if funded by the government, and per the president, full of fraud and abuse…….and it is run by who?

I admire the president for standing up for the basic principals of healthcare reform such as ending pre-existing conditions and other needed changes. However, before we go running of and funding what could easily bankrupt the country and placing European levels of taxes burdens on future generations, we need to address the responsibilities that come with the right to healthcare insurance in this country. I for one to not care to go any further down the path of this country becoming too much more like Europe. America has always had a unique way of dealing with challenges and adversity. The president alluded to that in his speech to Congress….but I just don’t buy his true belief in this. Sometimes too much slick talk is to be feared more that admired.

Healthcare does need to be reformed. It can’t happen all at once. Those with a true understanding of the healthcare system know that all too well. Let’s not get railroaded into what could easily be the next financial crisis…..and this one could not be solved by cutting interest rates or meeting with the G7. Reform needs to be methodical and well thought thru…..not something that is played out purely by good speeches and plays on emotions. IF IT IS A RIGHT…..IT HAS ASSOCIATED RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!!

Travis of MI 7:05PM September 14, 2009

jastokes of TN. Am I glad I am not your step son because I have seen addicts that your doctors have created fortunately for me I have a nonaddictive personality as my sister calls it and she should know having had trouble with illegal drugs. I like having A clear head and making my own decisions and fortunately for me I can because I do not even take aspirin and when my body complains I stretch or go for A walk or what ever it takes.

You are probably a nice person but our ideals of a healthy person differs a bit.

Don D. Brock

Don D. Brock of AZ 4:56PM August 31, 2009

Letters and Comments

Welcome to the U.S. News Readers' Letters and Comments blog. Positive or negative, reader feedback provides added perspective to any story. New letters and comments will be posted here regularly. Thank you for your submission.

advertisement

advertisement