The Right Wing's Latest Argument Against Public Health Care -- We'd Like It Too Much

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Lindsay Beyerstein, The Media Consortium.

A common thread is emerging in the right-wing response to health care reform. Its opponents aren't claiming that public health care will be bad. Rather, they are terrified that the new system will be so good that no citizen would buy expensive private insurance -- or vote for politicians who wanted to take public insurance away.

Barack Obama's team is sending clear signals that health care reform is a core economic issue, and the health insurance industry is becoming increasingly anxious by the future administration's determination to bring health care costs under control. Some Americans are seeing their health care premiums rising at four times the rate of inflation, if they have insurance at all. Health care reform is a pocketbook issue for all of us, according to the Obama team.

In tough economic times, it might be tempting to postpone health care reforms, but Obama is adamant that delay would be a false economy. In the American Prospect, Joanne Kenen and Sarah Axeen support claims about the high cost of doing nothing:

A recent

report

by the New America Foundation's health-policy program estimates that the cost of doing nothing about health care, including poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured, is well above $200 billion a year and rising. That's enough to cover the uninsured and still have some left over for other public-health needs.

If health care costs continue to rise at their current rates, it will cost $24,000 a year to insure a family of four by 2016, an 84 percent increase from today. At these rates, half of American households would have to spend at least 45 percent of their income to be insured.

In the Nation, Willa Thompson describes how a bicycle crash made her appreciate the connection between health care and politics. Thompson was 21 years old when she suffered major injuries after a collision with a truck. Luckily, she was covered by her parents' medical insurance until she turned 22. She later realized that if she had been just a few months older when the accident happened, she wouldn't have been able to pay for her medical care.

We all agree that something needs to be done. Let's briefly review the options that have been proposed so far: Obama wants to provide health care for all by requiring private insurance companies to cover everyone, and he wants to create a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. The second part of his plan, the public option, is what Republican opponents are so scared of.

Insurance companies love the idea that we will all be forced to buy their expensive product; they're not so keen about competition from the public sector.

Ezra Klein writes, "If you're looking for the coming fault line on the left of health care politics, keep an eye on what happens to the public-insurance option in the health reform bill." Will the public plan survive? Not if the Republicans and the insurance lobby have anything to say about it. As evidence, Klein cites this passage from a recent article in Congressional Quarterly:

Mark Hayes, a Republican health policy adviser to the Senate Finance Committee, said Republicans have concerns because the government plan might have access to price controls and other tools not available to private insurers. This could lead to lower premiums in the government plan, which would cause most consumers to migrate out of the private market, he said. "Over time, the effect the government option could have [is an] erosion in the private market, [making] other choices not available," Hayes said.

The consensus among progressives is clear, the public plan must prevail. In fact, many advocate going all the way to single-payer health insurance. Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee argues in the Progressive that Obama and Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary, should opt for single-payer health insurance. Now is no time for piecemeal solutions:

Such a path would perpetuate the crisis and deal a cruel blow to the hopes of Americans for real reform. Those in Congress and liberal policy organizations who are embracing caution or promoting more insurance, not more care, are playing a risky game. It could jeopardize the health security of tens of millions of Americans and, in the process, fatally erode public support for the Obama administration.

Klein links to a candid post from the blog of the right-wing Cato Institute, wherein Michael F. Cannon argues that blocking Obama's health plan is the key to GOP survival. Why? Because, history shows that once people start getting good health care from the government at a price they can afford, they want to keep re-electing the politicians who make that possible. Cannon calls the phenomenon where people re-elect governments that give them good health care "becoming dependent on the government," we call it "voting our self-interest."

In other health care news, public-health advocates are not pleased about rumors that Obama may ask Mark Dybul to stay on as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator for the first year of Obama's term. Dybul is responsible for implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which funds AIDS prevention and treatment in 15 poor countries. The advocates say that Dybul, a medical doctor, is too focused on medical interventions and behavioral changes for individuals and not sufficiently concerned with broader public-health initiatives.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on health care, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of the Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Lindsay Beyerstein is a New York writer blogging at majikthise.typepad.com

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/114...ke_it_too_much/

[rebeccajo 14]

As a citizen, I've been disgusted by private sector funding of our health care system.

As a person who now works within the industry, I'm more than disgusted.

Private sector funding of health care is a restrictive and limiting nightmare. Authorizations for this - treatment plans for that. Crazy restrictions on the credentials of providers that vary widely from state to state and actually assure no one of quality of care.

I am on the phone each day with representatives of insurance companies who give out conflicting information as to what the policies will pay; what the credentials of the providers must be; etc. They make the USCIS misinformation line look like a plethora of knowledge.

Conversely, persons who have State coverage of some kind can usually get treatment quicker, and a wider range of treatment, than those persons with private coverage. No one can convince me that public funding of health care could be a worse beureacratic nightmare than private. The evidence is just not there.

[mox 298]

Very interesting read.

The thing about national health care that just floors me is that study after study after study, for the last 20 years, has shown that the costs (both hard and opportunity costs) of providing a national health care system would not only be cheaper to the country in the long run, but it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms, it would create jobs, and it would create a healthier work force, thereby increasing worker productivity, which directly affects GDP. These are all CORE conservative values, and yet because those on the extreme right have successfully pushed the image that "socialized medicine = Communism," the Republicans have acted completely against their own interests.

[Amby 490]

I read the title of this thread as "pubic health care"

[HAL 9000 96]

Very interesting read.

The thing about national health care that just floors me is that study after study after study, for the last 20 years, has shown that the costs (both hard and opportunity costs) of providing a national health care system would not only be cheaper to the country in the long run, but it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms, it would create jobs, and it would create a healthier work force, thereby increasing worker productivity, which directly affects GDP. These are all CORE conservative values, and yet because those on the extreme right have successfully pushed the image that "socialized medicine = Communism," the Republicans have acted completely against their own interests.

Communist Communist Communist Communist

[AlHayatZween 2]

As a citizen, I've been disgusted by private sector funding of our health care system.

As a person who now works within the industry, I'm more than disgusted.

Private sector funding of health care is a restrictive and limiting nightmare. Authorizations for this - treatment plans for that. Crazy restrictions on the credentials of providers that vary widely from state to state and actually assure no one of quality of care.

I am on the phone each day with representatives of insurance companies who give out conflicting information as to what the policies will pay; what the credentials of the providers must be; etc. They make the USCIS misinformation line look like a plethora of knowledge.

Conversely, persons who have State coverage of some kind can usually get treatment quicker, and a wider range of treatment, than those persons with private coverage. No one can convince me that public funding of health care could be a worse beureacratic nightmare than private. The evidence is just not there.

this just makes me sad...

quality health care should be a human right... especially in this country where we are capable of doing so many things and we have the resources and intellect to create a plan where everyone has access to medical care. i have been without insurance before, and i dread the day it ever happens again.

i also agree with the article that health care is a core issue in economic reform. i really hope this incoming administration doesn't put this issue on the back burner.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Very interesting read.

The thing about national health care that just floors me is that study after study after study, for the last 20 years, has shown that the costs (both hard and opportunity costs) of providing a national health care system would not only be cheaper to the country in the long run, but it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms, it would create jobs, and it would create a healthier work force, thereby increasing worker productivity, which directly affects GDP. These are all CORE conservative values, and yet because those on the extreme right have successfully pushed the image that "socialized medicine = Communism," the Republicans have acted completely against their own interests.

The Republican Party is failing because some of its members refuse to acknowledge that private enterprise is not the answer to every problem in America.

[mox 298]

The Republican Party is failing because some of its members refuse to acknowledge that private enterprise is not the answer to every problem in America.

Yeah. Government provided services aren't always bad. The Post Office is a good example. Police, Fire Department, Air Traffic Control...all government services that do a better job at providing services to Americans than the private sector could do. We already have socialized services in this country and it's been demonstrated that it's not always (or even mostly) a bad thing. I'm all for letting the private sector provide services when they can do it better and cheaper. But private industry has failed health care and Americans.

[Mags 112]

I agree with Becca, the health system here absolutely disgusts me. I've seen, very recently, what has happened to friends of mine and I'm appalled.

And I can't, for the life of me, understand how an INSURANCE COMPANY has the right to overrule a DOCTOR'S opinion on treatment.

Being sick shouldn't bankrupt a person - and having the right to healthcare without having to pay a bloody fortune every month should be a RIGHT.

People don't choose to be sick, nor should they have to pay extortionate amounts just so they can get treatment and live.

It sickens me, truly sickens me.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Magenta

[mox 298]

It sickens me, truly sickens me.

Same here. What sickens me the most about it is that we would actually be much better off as a nation with a national health care infrastructure. It would mean more jobs, better worker productivity, less disease, less poverty, and an overall better standard of living. It drives me insane that it's misguided ideology that drives the movement against national health care, and not sound public policy.

[Mags 112]

It sickens me, truly sickens me.

Same here. What sickens me the most about it is that we would actually be much better off as a nation with a national health care infrastructure. It would mean more jobs, better worker productivity, less disease, less poverty, and an overall better standard of living. It drives me insane that it's misguided ideology that drives the movement against national health care, and not sound public policy.

Plus:

NO ONE SHOULD PROFIT FROM PEOPLE BEING ILL!

Which is what happens at the moment with the insurance companies. Making money from disease, illness and death is wrong, just plain WRONG.

Can you tell this is something I feel strongly about?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What if an insurance model were to be continued to be used, except all 'profits' were returned to policyholders in the form of a year-end check?

We have a non-profit insurance company here that writes auto and home insurance policies. They don't do health though. Their operations are funded through premiums alone and their staff are paid by member companies. To be a policyholder there, you have to work for one of their member companies.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Making money from disease, illness and death is wrong, just plain WRONG.

Can you tell this is something I feel strongly about?

mortuarys do make money. in fact, people are dying to see them.

[mox 298]

Plus:

NO ONE SHOULD PROFIT FROM PEOPLE BEING ILL!

Which is what happens at the moment with the insurance companies. Making money from disease, illness and death is wrong, just plain WRONG.

Can you tell this is something I feel strongly about?

I don't have a problem with a profit being made in health care as long as everyone has equal access to health care, and the concern for profit doesn't override the quality of care the patient is receiving. Right now that's definitely not happening. The bottom line should never determine what level of care a person receives.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dieing in line, wating to get care is good? Just like Carol's mom did. Now thats disgusting!