Lambert at Corrente correctly draws a distinction between single payer and the public option currently under discussion. He agrees with the opinion that the currently debated health care reforms would, even with the watered-down public option, amount to "a wildly reactionary plan to further enrich rapacious corporations." I agree too.
But what if the public option were not watered down? What if it were freely available to all? If the majority of Americans took that option, would we not have, in the end, the equivalent of single payer?
And I've never understood why this grand experiment would bother libertarians and conservatives. Their ideology holds that private enterprise always operates with greater quality and efficiency than does the government. If that ideological precept holds water, then why fear direct head-to-head competition between private and public health insurance?
5 comments:
That was the point of the Edwards and Clinton health care plan. It tipped the playing field inevitably towards single payer while allowing insurance companies, in the short term, access to a much bigger pool of people.
I do know that Baucus' plan includes the same numbers on pharmaceuticals that are allegedly contained in the deal the White House entered into with Billy Tauzin. That would suggest that Baucus is Obama's frontman on this issue.
The reason why this grand experiment bothers libertarians and conservatives on ideological grounds is quite simple. It would not be an equal playing field. You cannot expect a private company to compete fairly with the government. The government and it's programs will, and does currently, operate at a deficit, and can do so forever. Private enterprises cannot. What happens when Medicare (or a public option) runs out of money? the taxpayers subsidize it to keep it running. What happens when (most) private businesses run out of money...they go out of business. It is easy to see who the ultimate winner to be in this scenario 100 times out of 100.
It's my understanding that even the most robust public option will fail, for the simple reason that it does not solve the problems at hand.
Whatever we get will fail. The right will then conclude that government can't do healthcare, and America will continue to fall behind the rest of the world.
Since we're obviously not going to get a "robust" version of the public option, whatever the Dems pass will be another nail in their own coffin. Kind of a weird moment in history.
"It would not be an equal playing field. You cannot expect a private company to compete fairly with the government."
Yes you can, it's been proven all over the world and I don't see a reason why we can not do it here. The CEO's will not get mega-bonuse$$, but their companies will do well.
Take the time to read this article about a guy who actually went around the world and tested several health care models in Western countries:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/notebook.html
"...I got interested in Taiwan because Taiwan's Health Ministry did what our film does; it traveled the world studying health care systems. In the end, Taiwan chose the Canadian model. We went to Switzerland because it is a ferociously free-market economy with politically powerful insurance and drug companies. But still, the Swiss managed to revamp their system, making it cheaper and fairer. We thought that might inspire Americans to believe that change is possible here, too."
"You cannot expect a private company to compete fairly with the government."
But I thought private companies always did a much better job than the government, all the time, at everything! So if given an option, people would naturally, always and forever pick the private option! Because the government sucks, at everything -- right???
"What happens when (most) private businesses run out of money...they go out of business."
But...but...if private businesses are soooooo much better than the government, why would they run out of money? Wouldn't everyone be flocking to them, desperate to hand them their hard-earned dough rather than give it to the--HORRORS!--guvmint program? Why surely, all would recognize the superiority of the private health insurers, no?
I suspect the fear among libertarians/conservs is that the above is not exactly how things will go down...that people will actually say "Wait! You mean I'm not stuck with this crappy private health insurance?? Yippeee!!" and that will be the end of them. Yup, I suspect that is the real fear.
Post a Comment