Who Prefers a Public Health Insurance Option?
For all the false alarm ringing over "socialized medicine" when a choice of public health insurance is discussed, little is said about the tens of millions of people in the United States who are currently—happily—getting their health care through a public health plan of one kind or another, and the tens of millions more who want to have that choice available to them.
That fact was highlighted this week by stories about how veterans are reacting to the Obama administration's proposal to require veterans who have private health insurance, have their insurance cover their treatment for combat- and service-related injuries.
This headline speaks volumes: "Veterans blast Obama plan to cover injuries via private insurance." Veterans want the public health coverage to which they are entitled! In fact, they want the socialized medicine to which they are accustomed.
Health services provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) are truly socialized medicine, because the doctors and other health care providers who serve veterans work for the government and the government owns and runs the hospitals and other health care facilities where veterans get treatment. The VHA treats over 5 million veterans a year. (PDF)
It may surprise you to know that in the U.S. members of Congress and Presidents have a long history of also enjoying the socialized medicine taxpayers provide for them. In fact, members of Congress have the choice many of them want to deny you. They can choose a private health insurance plan through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program or they can get top-notch medical care at government facilities, like the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland.
Many regularly choose the public option. For example:
- When John McCain (R-AZ) found a discolored blotch on his left temple he headed to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda to have the spot checked out.
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had his heart bypass surgery at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.
- Former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) went to Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland complaining of fatigue and subsequently got a new heart valve there.
U.S. Presidents also have a long history of using the socialized medicine provided to them by taxpayers, including George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
But the socialized medicine veterans, members of Congress and U.S. Presidents enjoy is not what Barack Obama is proposing when he includes a choice of public health insurance in his health reform plan. The public health insurance plan being discussed as part of national health reform would work more like Medicare, in which the government runs the insurance coverage, but the doctors, hospitals and other health care providers people go to are the same private, independent providers that currently care for them.
In fact, people with Medicare currently have the choice of public health insurance or private plans that contract with Medicare. About eighty percent of the 44.8 million older and disabled Americans who have Medicare coverage—about 35.4 million people—choose the government-run public plan over the private Medicare plans.
It is the choice 73 percent of voters want, including Democrats (77 percent), Independents (79 percent), and Republicans (63 percent). They want this choice because:
- 61 percent think a public health insurance plan will be better able to control health care costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Only 25 percent believe a public health insurance plan will shift higher costs onto the privately insured.
- 61 percent agree that millions of people are already losing their coverage every year, and a choice of private or public health insurance plans will make sure that Americans always have quality, affordable care. Only 27 percent believe the claim that a public health insurance plan will cause millions of people to be dumped from their private coverage.
- 66 percent agree that a public health insurance plan will provide a choice with a standard, comprehensive package of benefits and a wide choice of doctors. Only 26 percent believe a public health insurance plan will force people into lower quality care including rationing and long waits.
It's time we all had the choice of public health insurance!
Previous entry: Vital Signs Weak: Competition in Health Insurance and Health Provider Markets
Next entry: Do You Know What You Are Getting When You Buy Health Insurance?
4 Comments
Think of the savings there would there be if elected officials were all required to buy their own health insurance out of pocket instead of getting it at taxpayer expense! And then maybe so many members of Congress wouldn’t be totally disconnected from the realities that their constituents face. Roy Blunt, for instance (http://illinillinois.blogspot.com/2009/03/even-ryan-could-run-better-health-care.html), says a single-player plan would mean lots of paperwork! As if people don’t have that now.
The information here about our representatives in Congress having a choice of government-funded facilities is interesting. Their use of such facilities suggests they believe these facilities provide high quality care. But I don’t see a need for the writer here to repeat the term “socialized medicine” which has been used as a red flag for so many years, helping to defeat every effort to bring government-funded care to all Americans. Yes, I get the point that when the providers and employees of the health care facility receive government paychecks, it is “socialized medicine,” in the same way that firemen paid by a municipality is “socialized fire-fighting.” And yes, there is irony in seeing our members of Congress preferring the very system they insist on denying us.
As the writer points out, this “socialized medicine” is not the model most single-payer advocates promote. Generally, they support government funding of health services, with private delivery. It simply means eliminating insurance companies and having the government be the payer. If we build a system with both a government-funded program and private insurance, then many of the discussions seem to assume that the public plan should be a kind of last resort, and even this writer talks about people being “dumped” into the public plan. I have seen this terminology used elsewhere, and I resent it! Many of us would greatly prefer a public plan rather than having an insurance company determine our access to medical care. Rather than worrying about people being “dumped” into a public plan, we should be worrying that the insurance lobby will fight with all their considerable muscle to limit who can elect the public plan, instead forcing us to take any private plan that might be available to us. Personally, I do not want to be “dumped” into the care of some for-profit insurance company! A public plan should be available to all, even those who have options for private insurance. My guess is that many Americans will prefer and choose (and not have to be “dumped” into) the public plan.
Having a public option as one of many options could be good as long as the public health plan is required to operate on the premiums it receives and does not relay on tax dollars. This will ensure greater choice for those seeking a health plan that fits their particular needs, without having to pay for a one size fits all health plan.
Max Baucus and others are blocking even the consideration of a public option. We’ve got to act!
HERE’S SOMETHING TO INVESTIGATE:
From the article: “Baucus Draws Big Money From The Health Industry” http://www.billingsnews.com/stories/index/668
“A new study released this week by a California advocacy group shows that U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has received more campaign contributions from health insurance firms and pharmaceutical manufacturers over the past four years than any other Democrat in Congress.”
According to the Consumer Watchdog study (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org) using Federal Election Commission data, Sen. Baucus has received $413,000 since 2005 from insurance companies and drug makers, third behind U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.”
HERE"S MORE:
Sen Max Baucus, who ruled single-payer and a public optionhealth reform off the table, is now pressuring the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to favorably judge his health plan as financially sound—even though it isn’t.
The CBO issued a series of recent studies which have found that most savings claimed, in the effort to keep private-for-profit insurance companies in the mix, do not exist.
Alternatively, a single-payer system would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.
Tell Senator Baucus we need accurate numbers, and that A NON-PROFIT PUBLIC OPTION FOR ALL AMERICANS and SINGLE-PAYER REFORM, SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE AND GIVEN FULL AND FAIR HEARINGS BY THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
Write to Baucus: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
E-mail your Senators and Representatives. You can find your elected officials’ contact information here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
The facts are here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/indus.php?cycle=2008&id=MTS2
http://www.change.org/ideas/294/view_action/sen_baucus_we_need_accurate_numbers_not_creative_figuring