Not only will the new program become the default coverage for the uninsured, but Democrats intend to game the system to precipitate—or if need be, coerce—an exodus . . . of private insurance. Soon enough, that will be the only “option” left. -- The Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2009
A new report from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers warns that the increasing cost of health care is not sustainable. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that individual and corporate income taxes would have to rise through 2050 by 90 percent even without “public option,” the new middle-class entitlement.
The CEA Report, titled, The Economic Case for Health Care Reform, mentions among its solution: People should get used to less medical care. Betsy McCaughey, long-time critic, argues that a superior way is to reduce government’s share of the costs, which will not be done by ousting the private health-care insurers through the new radical public option.
President Obama wants the health-care insurance bill passed right away, and two bills are scheduled to be heard in the Senate this month. Unfortunately, that will give little time for readers to absorb The Wall Street Journal’s April 13 editorial, “The End of Private Health Insurance.”
The President and others argue illogically that health care will be less expensive if everyone is covered, an argument used to make the case for mandating health-care insurance. Massachusetts in 2006 adopted mandating. By nearly universal agreement, the law is a failure and not a good model for the country, though it is the model for Senator Kennedy’s bill.
High among the controversial issues list is single-payer. It is defined as a “single government-backed insurance plan that would pay for all Americans’ medical costs.” But suddenly, without warning, single-payer has been whisked off the table, to the consternation of supporters. The official reason? It’s “too radical.”
“This public option would be the most radical change in the way American health care is financed—and thus provided—in at least 44 years, and maybe ever,” says the WSJ.
Opponents see single-payer as a government bulldozer kicking private insurance companies out of the industry.
Another explosive issue is whether health-care insurance should be mandated. Massachusetts mandates “universal” health-care insurance for individuals, but it is universally seen as a failure, even though it is being used as the model in Senator Kennedy’s bill
Massachusetts’s mandate on individuals is a windfall for the insurance industry, which is “holding us hostage,” according to resident and single-payer proponent Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
If there is mandating, it should be only a last resort, according to Professor Stuart Butler. He advocates starting out with “automatic enrollment,” where people are signed up unless they actively decline. Part B of Medicare is voluntary, and through automatic enrollment, about 96 percent of eligible seniors are enrolled. The point is to try individual responsibility as the default option before sending the cops around to enforce the mandate, urges Butler.
Programs that work, writes Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, are incentive-based. She cites a survey by Deloitte’’s Center for Health Solutions that found that the cost of consumer-directed health plans increased by only 2.6% in 2006 among 152 major companies, which is one-third the rate of increase among traditional plans.
Senator Kennedy has his bill all ready for adoption. It creates the public option —the new government-sponsored health insurance plan -- which would compete with private insurers. It does not include cost estimates or discuss how to pay for the expansion.
Massachusetts had one of the highest rates of insured at the outset of the program, which is costing heavily. One problem is that Massachusetts kept in place the same expensive mandates that had made private coverage expensive.
Massachusetts’s universal health care was to insure everybody by forcing everybody into either private programs or expanded government programs, using both tax hikes and subsidies. Subsidies include families earning up to 500 percent of the poverty level or $110,000.
Opponents see the goal of public option as getting rid of the private insurance companies and putting the government as the single-payer in the position of command and control of the industry. Senator Bennett in an eloquent speech on the Senate floor last week pointed out that if a bill includes private as well as public insurers, it will be arranged so that ultimately the public will be the only player. Public option seems to be designed to rid the industry of its private companies.
What does the public think? One poll found the single-payer option last of eight choices, with 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. One-third of those who favor public-payer would be against it if were the opening of a single-payer system.
The Wall Street Journal April 13 editorial concludes,
"Republicans, especially those in the Senate who want to cut a deal on health care, should understand that a public option is the beginning of the end of private health insurance."
By Natalie Sirkin
c2009
A new report from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers warns that the increasing cost of health care is not sustainable. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that individual and corporate income taxes would have to rise through 2050 by 90 percent even without “public option,” the new middle-class entitlement.
The CEA Report, titled, The Economic Case for Health Care Reform, mentions among its solution: People should get used to less medical care. Betsy McCaughey, long-time critic, argues that a superior way is to reduce government’s share of the costs, which will not be done by ousting the private health-care insurers through the new radical public option.
President Obama wants the health-care insurance bill passed right away, and two bills are scheduled to be heard in the Senate this month. Unfortunately, that will give little time for readers to absorb The Wall Street Journal’s April 13 editorial, “The End of Private Health Insurance.”
The President and others argue illogically that health care will be less expensive if everyone is covered, an argument used to make the case for mandating health-care insurance. Massachusetts in 2006 adopted mandating. By nearly universal agreement, the law is a failure and not a good model for the country, though it is the model for Senator Kennedy’s bill.
High among the controversial issues list is single-payer. It is defined as a “single government-backed insurance plan that would pay for all Americans’ medical costs.” But suddenly, without warning, single-payer has been whisked off the table, to the consternation of supporters. The official reason? It’s “too radical.”
“This public option would be the most radical change in the way American health care is financed—and thus provided—in at least 44 years, and maybe ever,” says the WSJ.
Opponents see single-payer as a government bulldozer kicking private insurance companies out of the industry.
Another explosive issue is whether health-care insurance should be mandated. Massachusetts mandates “universal” health-care insurance for individuals, but it is universally seen as a failure, even though it is being used as the model in Senator Kennedy’s bill
Massachusetts’s mandate on individuals is a windfall for the insurance industry, which is “holding us hostage,” according to resident and single-payer proponent Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
If there is mandating, it should be only a last resort, according to Professor Stuart Butler. He advocates starting out with “automatic enrollment,” where people are signed up unless they actively decline. Part B of Medicare is voluntary, and through automatic enrollment, about 96 percent of eligible seniors are enrolled. The point is to try individual responsibility as the default option before sending the cops around to enforce the mandate, urges Butler.
Programs that work, writes Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, are incentive-based. She cites a survey by Deloitte’’s Center for Health Solutions that found that the cost of consumer-directed health plans increased by only 2.6% in 2006 among 152 major companies, which is one-third the rate of increase among traditional plans.
Senator Kennedy has his bill all ready for adoption. It creates the public option —the new government-sponsored health insurance plan -- which would compete with private insurers. It does not include cost estimates or discuss how to pay for the expansion.
Massachusetts had one of the highest rates of insured at the outset of the program, which is costing heavily. One problem is that Massachusetts kept in place the same expensive mandates that had made private coverage expensive.
Massachusetts’s universal health care was to insure everybody by forcing everybody into either private programs or expanded government programs, using both tax hikes and subsidies. Subsidies include families earning up to 500 percent of the poverty level or $110,000.
Opponents see the goal of public option as getting rid of the private insurance companies and putting the government as the single-payer in the position of command and control of the industry. Senator Bennett in an eloquent speech on the Senate floor last week pointed out that if a bill includes private as well as public insurers, it will be arranged so that ultimately the public will be the only player. Public option seems to be designed to rid the industry of its private companies.
What does the public think? One poll found the single-payer option last of eight choices, with 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. One-third of those who favor public-payer would be against it if were the opening of a single-payer system.
The Wall Street Journal April 13 editorial concludes,
"Republicans, especially those in the Senate who want to cut a deal on health care, should understand that a public option is the beginning of the end of private health insurance."
By Natalie Sirkin
c2009
Comments
First, a little story.
My wife and I are in our early 60's and self employed.
We pay for health insurance out of our own pockets. We do not receive any employer contributions to our health care like most Americans who get a paycheck nor do we get taxpayer subsidized healthcare like our dear California Congressmen McClintock who is lucky enough to be federal employees and enjoy wonderful health benefits.
At our age, our health insurance company , Blue Shield would be charging us $1500-$2000 a month for coverage...if we could afford that.
Since we can't ....we opted for the cheapest option available to us at our age....a catastrophic healthcare option with a $10,000 deductible. So in essence we pay for all our own doctor visits, prescriptions, dental cleanings...up to $10,000 per person per year. Only after we've paid out $10,000 will our insurance company's benefits start to kick in.
Monthly cost for that lousy plan....$900 a month!!
I would call a healthcare plan like that...pretty crummy.
So what have we been doing to get healthcare we can afford??
Well, for the last 4 years we've been hoping on a flight to Thailand every November where we take care of all our aches and pains, dental work and physicals....for about 1/10th the cost of what we would pay for the same medical services in the good old USA.
That's right. $2500 worth of physicals...ultra sounds, blood tests, ekg's, stress tests, bone density scans, mammograms...for $300. An $2500 operation for dysphasia...for $100. $100 Dental cleanings... for $20...by a real dentist and assistant, not a dental hygenist.
The flight is 14 hours and costs $900 roundtrip ...but the savings are so huge and the service so great that even after the airfare...we come out way ahead.
The US healthcare system is broken. But Americans need not become victims.
Foreign countries offer excellent medical care for a fraction of the cost.
In fact, if more people would opt to have their healthcare needs taken care of in Mexico, India or Thailand, it would go a long way to introducing more competition in the US healthcare market.
What is even more amazing is that Thailand has a public healthcare system that even American's can use.
I now have a medical card to Chulalongkorn Hospital in Bangkok and I used my US passport as ID.
I no longer have to worry about outrageous medical bills and insurance premiums in America.
See the YouTube video I did on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYqqeRe1uw
As a federal employees Republican congressmen, (who think everyone else should be on a private plan), get a taxpayers funded plan that pays for 75% of their insurance premiums.
Here's how The office of Personnel management describes their taxpayer funded plan
"Federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country. You can choose from among Consumer-Driven and High Deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health savings/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) if you live (or sometimes if you work) within the area serviced by the plan."