[lbo-talk] Why Public Option Is Defective; Why Only Single-Payer Will Do

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Wed Jul 29 08:49:39 PDT 2009


http://www.progressive.org/mpwool072209.html

July 22, 2009 The Progressive

Why Obama's Public Option Is Defective, and Why We Need Single-Payer. By Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein

Once Congress finishes mandating that we all buy private health

insurance, it can move on to requiring Americans to purchase other

defective products.

A Ford Pinto in every garage?

Lead-painted toys for every child?

Melamine-laced chow for every puppy?

Private health insurance doesn't work.

Even middle-class families with supposedly good coverage are just one

serious illness away from financial ruin.

Illness and medical bills contribute to 62 percent of personal

bankruptcies -- a 50 percent increase since 2001. And three-quarters of

the medically bankrupt had insurance, at least when they first got

sick.

Coverage that families bought in good faith failed to protect them.

Some were bankrupted by co-payments, deductibles, and loopholes. Others

got too sick to work, leaving them unemployed and uninsured.

Now Congress plans to make it a federal offence not to purchase such

faulty insurance.

On top of that, it's threatening to tax workers' health benefits to

meet the costs of simultaneously covering the poor and keeping private

insurers in business.

President Obama's plan would finance reform by draining funds from

hospitals that serve the neediest patients. His other funding plans

aren't harmful, just illusory. He's gotten unenforceable pledges from

hospitals, insurers and the American Medical Association to rein in

costs, a replay of promises they made (and broke) to Presidents Nixon

and Carter. And Obama trumpets savings from computerized medical

records and better care management, savings the Congressional Budget

Office has dismissed as wishful thinking.

The president's health plan can't make universal, comprehensive

coverage affordable.

Only single-payer health reform -- Medicare for All -- can achieve that

goal.

Single-payer national health care could realize about $400 billion in

savings annually -- enough to cover the uninsured and to upgrade

coverage for all Americans. But the vast majority of these savings

aren't available unless we go all the way to single payer.

A public plan option might cut into private insurers' profits. That's

why they hate it. But their profits -- roughly $10 billion annually --

are dwarfed by the money they waste in search of profit. They spend

vast sums for marketing (to attract the healthy); demarketing (to avoid

the sick); billing their ever-shifting roster of enrollees; fighting

with providers over bills; and lobbying politicians. And doctors and

hospitals spend billions more meeting insurers' demands for

documentation.

A single-payer plan would eliminate most insurance overhead, as well as

these other paperwork expenses. Hospitals could be paid like a fire

department, receiving a single monthly check for their entire budget.

Physicians' billing could be similarly simplified.

With a public insurance option, by contrast, hospitals and doctors

would still need elaborate billing and cost-tracking systems. And

overhead for even the most efficient competitive public option would be

far higher than for traditional Medicare, which is efficient precisely

because it doesn't compete. It automatically enrolls seniors at 65 and

deducts their premiums through the social security system, contracts

with any willing provider, and does no marketing.

Health insurers compete by NOT paying for care: by seeking out the

healthy and avoiding the sick; by denying payment and shifting costs

onto patients; and by lobbying for unfair public subsidies (as under

the Medicare HMO program). A kinder, gentler public plan that failed to

emulate these behaviors would soon be saddled with the sickest,

costliest patients and the highest payouts, driving premiums to

uncompetitive levels. To compete successfully, a public plan would have

to copy private plans.

Decades of experience teach that private insurers cannot control costs

or provide families with the coverage they need. And a government-run

clone of private insurers cannot fix these flaws.

Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein are associate professors

at Harvard Medical School. They co-founded Physicians for a National

Health Program, a nonprofit research and education organization of

16,000 physicians, medical students, and health professionals who

support single-payer national health insurance. For more about the

group, go to www.pnhp.org.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list