ATLANTA— The idea of a government-backed, public option to provide “cheap” health insurance and to compete with private insurers is the rallying call of the left during this summer’s raucous health care debate. The left frequently cites a poll performed by the NY Times that said 72% of Americans back a public option to support their effort. The problem with this poll is that upon further investigation of the polling data (click here to see), the poll participants are shown to be heavily biased towards union members and Obama supporters. It is a fabrication. Other polls of likely voters show that at or near a majority of Americans oppose the public option. I am among the majority of Americans that oppose the public option. Here are my four BIG-TIME reasons why:
-
I do not think the proper role of government is that of a “market competitor” that both sets the rules and plays the game- in this or any industry;
-
I do not think the government will do an efficient/effective job of running the program – I think the amount of waste and fraud will be enormous (akin to MediCare). Most Americans agree with me, according to the polls.
-
I don’t think we can afford it as a nation- it bends the long-term health care cost trend upwards and will threaten us with national insolvency unless we all pay ridiculous taxes that would impede economic growth. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees with me, which should be alarming to the left.
-
I think it will low-ball the markets, squeezing out many of the economic incentives for health care providers to supply insurance, medical technology, pharmaceuticals, and health care services in general.
There was a time in my life where I supported the status quo and argued against everyone who said there was something wrong with American health-care. All my liberal friends finally convinced me that I was wrong- there is something wrong with American health-care: it’s too expensive for too many people.
But even so, after listening to their proposals and schemes, I have not been convinced of the liberal solution to this problem- public health care. The solution is overly simplistic and doesn’t properly get at the economic issues of scarcity and incentives. Further, it doesn’t take into account the gross over-extension of the federal budget due to current unfunded entitlements. We can’t keep promising pie in the sky forever. Someday, the bill is going to come home.
What sense does it make to add a massive new entitlement program that is not funded under the current House proposal, on top of the huge unfunded entitlement programs we already have? This is madness. MediCare’s unfunded liabilities are between $35 – $50 trillion, depending on which analysis you read. The system is projected to go insolvent for several types of the services it provides by 2016. 2016!!! That would be right at the end of a second Obama term (provided he gets reelected, against all odds).
Somehow in the last year people have lost sight of what the world “trillion” really means. I have read that a way to think of it is if you think of a million, a billion and a trillion in terms of seconds, then 1 million seconds ago is 12 days ago, 1 billion seconds ago is something like 35 years ago, and 1 trillion seconds ago is the year 30,000 BC. That gives you some perspective.
The entire US economy produces $14 – 15 trillion annually. In order to fund the MediCare gap, we would have to dedicate our entire national productive output towards funding the plan for almost 4 years. Obviously, that is impossible, in both theoretical and practical terms.
So seriously: how do we fix it? We have to move the retirement age upwards towards 70 or so, for starters. Or- we have to do what Mr. Obama proposes we do, and ration care for the elderly in their waning years, denying coverage for otherwise “life saving” treatments.
And left-wing Democrats are the people that want to add a new, unfunded entitlement on top of MediCare. How can you argue that one will not lead to the same rationing Mr. Obama is already proposing for MediCare? This just doesn’t make any sense.
Our nation’s out of control entitlement programs are already spiraling us on a course towards national debt default, unless we do something serious about them. Mark my words, if the US ever came close to defaulting on its sovereign debt, there will be economic hell to pay in every corner of this globe.
Stop the madness! Vote no on the public option!
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
I wonder if the allegation that the NYT’s poll is skewed toward union members is justified by the data shown at the link. Looks to me like it doesn’t test for union membership; it simply asks if they get their insurance from their employer OR a union.
70-30 is a mighty hard margin to create by distortion. Those surveys that suggest people oppose the public option that I’ve seen have used GOP buzzwords, like, “Do you support a ‘government healthcare plan?’” And that question is both subject to a great deal of personal interpretation and designed to take advantage of the negative implications of its terms. You won’t find (my guess is) an independent poll that uses that language or that supports the thesis that a majority oppose a public option.
Monte – thanks for dropping by. You look like you have a very thoughtful blog that I can appreciate. I just respectfully disagree with your positions here.
One of the problems with the NY Times poll is the question on who did you vote for. It says 48 Obama, 25 McCain and 19 percent no vote. When Obama won 52 to 46, that doesn’t seem representative.
I’m sorry, but people who do not vote in elections should have less of a say in swaying the policy discourse in this nation. Also, how would this poll have been different if up to double the amount of McCain supporters that were in it were asked these same questions?
Further, the question on willingness to pay more taxes disagrees with many other polls. In this one, the vast majority say they are willing. In other polls, the vast majority say they are not.
Also, the polling data is disproportionally skewed towards people who favor insuring everyone over decreasing costs, which is also uniquely different from other polls on the same subject. Every major poll I read has the trend going the opposite direction.
But beyond this, the question comes down to basic economics. Can we create a government-run option that pays MediCare-like rates and expect for health industry service providers to continue to provide care at the same quality and amounts that they currently do? Can we expect that system to incentivize future medical advances? Resoundingly no. Quality will decline and availability will go down, while demand goes up. This will impact everyone- there will be so many “inhumane” rationing decisions made we will forget about the “problem” of uninsured we are currently facing.
I have a good friend who is a consultant to medical practicioners in the TN and GA area. His group is responsible for managing the day-to-day business affairs for over 50 practicioners- mainly in rural areas. They have done the math using the proposed reimbursement tables provided for in this bill and provided those numbers to the practicioners. 15 of the groups they help said they will close their doors if the bill is passed as is- they know the areas they serve will have high numbers of people in this public plan and they say they will not be able to sustain operations. Talk about inhumane. Rural healthcare scarcity is already a problem- imagine if this problem is increased under the current plan.
We need reform that makes sense BOTH for individuals who need insurance AND for health care providers. This bill is TOO demand sided. It is not enough supply sided.
Stephen,
I came here following the link you posted on the other thread and only now (having just finished writing this) did I realize I am still on American Missive…. doh!
Thank you for showing a willingness to discuss this rationally. I started this practice of visiting conservative blogs because I was tired of the mudslinging and name calling downright that was doing nothing but clouding the issues.
Oh – I have been called plenty of names in the process – but it is always refreshing to find someone like yourself looking for conversation on the issue.
Yesterday on my own blog I posted the three things I want to get out of reform. It started as as a short blog but grew with the telling. I will just post a link to it here. You will not though that I am perfectly happy if the private sector can can accomplish my three goals. I am skeptical that the private sector can do that, but I am open to hearing about it.
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/01/what-i-want-from-health-care-reform-my-tastes-are-simple/
In the end this is also a moral issue for me. Every time a policyholder is denied treatment and the money saved ends up as profit – well – that seems like blood money to me. I am not sure how a for-profit system can get around that issue.
The points you make above (and I realize this is an older post) are well taken.
Issue #2 (too much waste) can be dealt with – though I admit the government does not have the best track record here. If there is a public option there will need to be some way to see waste and fraud are eliminate.
Issue #1 – I would rather not see the government in business either – but I think the private sector has screwed this one up and I am not sure they can fix it themselves.
Issue #4: I don’t think having the government offering insurance will have any effect on innovation in medicine – basic medical research and the like. As far as stalling innovation in the insurance sector – really – are there that many amazing breakthroughs still out there in actuarial science?
Issue #3: The cost….. This is the hardest to deal with – believe me I understand the concern. On the other hand, we cannot afford for reform to fail either – rising costs in the current system will eventually destroy our economy – both sides agree on that.
Again, thanks for the conversation.
– hippieprof
Yep – glad you like good conversation. We’ve enjoyed having you by.
I’m spending way too much time on here tonight, as your email box is probably brimming over the top with posts from me on various blogs. But I enjoy this and my wife is in another room on a conference call, so I have the time to kill. Blogging is my hobby and I have learned a great deal doing it.
Did want to address your points:
#2 (on waste) – here’s the kicker – the way to deal with it is to add more administrative expenses to the program to properly feret out fraud and waste and to remove the broken fee for service model. Unfortunately, that kills one of the selling points on the left for a public option…
#1 = I’m not convinced the private sector screwed this up. The government has been knee deep in health insurance since at least the 1940’s and now over half of all spending in this country is by government programs (MediCare, MediCaid, Schip, whatever). Government mismanagement, poor tax policy, bad regulations, etc. play enormous parts in this debate.
#4 – I’m mainly concerned about the “supply” in that comment. Lots of rural practicioners will close down, if the public option comes into play with MediCare rates. There just will be less to go around. Running a medical practice is already highly expensive, as a result of medical malpractice insurance, etc.
#3 – That’s the kicker. This thing is way to expensive. That’s why conservatives favor ground-up cost savings through high deductible insurance offset by tax-favored health savings accounts (get people into a habit of understanding the costs of what basic health services they are getting so they will be more inclined to shop around); tort reform; etc. The government doesn’t spend a dime, but changes the incentives. That’s what I favor…
Stephen,
I am all in favor of tort reform *if* we can find a way so to be sure that the guy who is really badly damaged (i.e., they remove the wrong kidney) will still get a large large sum of money. The frivolous suits – especially the class-action stuff where only the PI lawyers make any money – those just have to stop.
One way to increase competition and actually give people the chance of shopping around is to allow insurance purchases across state lines. That would break the current oligopoly which dominates the industry. But – states right advocates and (big surprise) the insurance companies are fighting this.
– hippieprof
Right on! I agree with you on both of those points. Getting competition across state lines would be very tricky though, as you say, b/c the states would have to sign up. But I think it is definitely encouraging states to get on board with. We don’t need the mini-monopolies we currently have in various regions of the country.