Considering Roy Blunt’s recent difficulty parsing the prescribed Republican talking points on the topic of health care reform, he probably ought to be a little more careful about what he says. During the same interview, when he tried to explain why he thinks that we should never have created Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health administration, or SCHIP, poor ole’ Daddy Blunt actually came up with this gem on the topic of government providing its citizens with an insurance plan, the so-called public option:
A government competitor would drive all the other competitors away. What we should be doing is creating more competition. One of the reasons the marketplace doesn’t work the way it should work right now is we really don’t have the competitive marketplace that I’d like to see put in place.
My first thought was … What??? Isn’t the government just another competitor in this scenario? Isn’t competition supposed to be good? Why does more competition get Mr. Blunt so lathered up?
But then the light dawned. If I were to compete in a beauty contest, I too would certainly want to get rid of the best-looking competitors before the contest ever started. It is an indisputable fact that our private insurance system has provided inferior access to care at far greater cost than in any other developed nation–almost all of which have either public, or a combination of private and public insurance. So, as Mr. Blunt implicitly acknowledges, the private sector actually isn’t looking too good as far as that beauty contest goes.
What about a level playing field, you ask? I would respond that competition is all about leveling the playing field. If private insurers have to compete with the public option, then, to survive, they will have to offer a product that gives its subscribers better access to care while paring down their obscene profit margins. That is how competition should work–for the benefit of the consumer, not as Mr. Blunt seems to suppose, for the advantage of the medical industries and their congressional protectors.
Think I am not being fair? Just look at the the relationship between subsidies and competition that inspires Mr. Blunt to the point of incoherence. In the past he has supported the type of competition that makes big companies wealthy so that they can subsidize politicians who then, in turn, dip into the public till to provide big subsidies to these “private” companies. Just think back to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which instead of attempting to lower the costs of prescription drugs, gave us an unnecessarily complicated, high-overhead plan that used public funds to subsidize costs to drug companies. I don’t believe that Mr. Blunt worried too much about government subsidies back then.
I am not sure if the intent of your post is to critique Roy Blunt or to discuss health care reform.
Certainly Mr Blunt should hang his head in shame, first for having relegated health care access to a competitive bid commodity and second, for not knowing what he is talking about.
But it is the commodification of health care access that is most disturbing. There is something inherently amoral in a system of health care distribution that relies on a competitive bidding system for simple access. Health care is a basic necessity of life and should be considered a human right. To hear Mr Blunt speak, one is led to think it is competition that is the basic necessity to life and should be considered a human right.
Regarding the level playing field, it might be wise to consider that position w. a little more caution. While it is true that
If private insurers have to compete with the public option, then, to survive, they will have to offer a product that gives its subscribers better access to care while paring down their obscene profit margins.
That condition would work both ways. The public plan will have to compete w. the private plans and offer a product that is equivalent to the private plans with respect to provider reimbursement, offer those plans for a smaller premium in order to cause insurance to pare down their profits, and accept no public money unless those subsidies are also offered to privately insured individuals.
Then there is the very murky issue of subsidy as opposed to a properly funded public plan. The House bill asks that individuals in the upper tax brackets shoulder a part of the load to individually subsidize individuals who are unable to pay the full premium or who fit a certain economic frame. (means testing) It seems that these revenues will be paid directly into the general revenues budget and as we so recently witnessed in the case of SCHIP, those subsidies can be given and they can be taken away. Contrast that w. Medicare Part A which is paid via a withholding tax directly into the Medicare Trust Fund, and thus is out of reach of political wrangling. Medicare Part A is a publicly funded public program that covers hospitalization. Part B is premium funded and as such more vulnerable to congressional political shenanigans.
I recommend protection of the public option, ask for an unalterable public funding mechanism, open it up to individuals who would like to join regardless of income and eliminate the means testing component.
A public program shouldn’t be a private program replica and vice versa. If it is about choice, let us choose, if it is about competitiveness, we might need to rethink the issue.
sorry about the quote not being accurately separated. I can’t seem to find a way to correct. Sorry sorry sorry.
is that we will soon reach a point of no return in the development of a reform program that will leave quite a bit to be desired. This today from Kaiser offers a good look at what we are likely to get in the way of choice, etc.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…
The “firewall” defined in the link will keep the public option from morphing into a single payer system or anything resembling SP. This is the promise of Obama and Sebelius that we discussed earlier.
Unfortunately means testing will play a big role. I am sure we can expect a few enhancements for those w. employer sponsored care such as portability and preexisting condition reform. But overall it is difficult to see how a program such as this can improve conditions for consumers or even keep costs down for that matter except by denying care.
Once this reform is in place and signed by Obama, it is our reform for perhaps the next fifteen years.
Thanks WillyK for your interest in health care reform.
Public option proponents, please speak up. This is your moment.