"The Public Option as a Kind of Stealth Single-Payer"
There has been much squabbling about the potential of a public option to morph into a de facto single-payer system, with the right taking the "Will too!" position and the left rebutting with a "Will not!"
Those worried about a presto chango argued that when government steps into the health care market and uses the power of the state to artificially lower their own costs, private plans might very well wither and die.
And it looks like that might have been the point all along. Not so much an evil, secret plan, though. More like an admittedly long-shot hope.
The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt fills in some historical facts about the Democrats' strategy, "a real high-wire act—to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative."
Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future…took UC Berkley health care expert Jacob Hacker's idea for "a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare" and went around to the community of single-payer advocates, making the case that this limited "public option" was the best they could hope for. Ideally, it would someday magically turn into single-payer.
The Dems went gung ho for this strategy, but the general population—which turned out to be just barely astute enough to sense a bait-and-switch (who knew?)—didn't. As even squishier compromises ooze over the horizon, Schmitt mournfully concludes:
If there is a public plan, it certainly won't be the kind of deal that could "become the dominant player."
To which I—along with my cynical, naysaying friends—reply: Whew.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Will to!"
too.
The so called "public option" is another name for Medicaid - (without state funds) and will be severely constrained like its older brethren.
High end docs won't take it. The market will sequester full-fee and full service medicine just as it should be.
If I had the cash, I'd put it into fee-based health clinics in Tiajuana, Juarez and other border towns. It's going to be a huge market.
health care market and uses the power of the state to artificially lower costs, private plans might very well wither and die.
I wish the private sector would quit making this argument. The government's private option won't lower cost, it'll raise them dramatically, while merely offering lower compensation to providers. You know, like the single-payer government healthcare plan we have now called Medicare?
Erh, should have said the government's public option...
Hmm... maybe the 'government's private option' works better though... I may be on to something.
Will the government plan magically eliminate cost-shifting from price-regulated patients to everybody else?
Tracked by the IRS, of course:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/goodbye-to-health-care-privacy.html
It depends on how much the "public option" is subsidized and when political attempts to contain costs kick in.
Many "single-payer" nations have been opening their markets to "supplmental" insurance, precisely to allow private citizens to compensate for the deficiencies in the public health system.
Over time, that probably means an evolution back towards a free market system, with the public plans becoming more like Medicaid: substandard medical care for the very poor. Those who can afford it will opt out as the "supplemental" insurance begins to cover more and more things.
Basically, that'll happen when the socialized system starts running out of other people's money, because that's when the cost containment efforts begin to kick in.
Uh oh, guys, the awesome moral and intellectual heft of the PCUSA is now behind single-payer. We're doomed, I tell ya, doomed......
PCUSA official supports government-run health plan
http://layman.org/news.aspx?article=26247
Obama rallies 'Religious Left'
http://www.layman.org/news.aspx?article=26287
I don't know if anyone saw this lovely video of Barney Frank admitting that the public option is the best way to get to single payer, but there you go.
If the public option works, then it most certainly WILL put the health insurance companies out of business.
But that should be the point. Health insurance companies should not be in business.
But Obama screwed this up so badly by dropping single payer at the outset and caring more about sucking up to republicans than getting his agenda passed that there's no way any healthcare reform will be passed. Since it would take 2-3 years to implement any new healthcare program, and since America will collapse within 2 years, it's all a moot point.
If Obama had half a brain cell, he'd have been attacking the health insurance companies from the very beginning, calling them private death panels, saying they are a plot to kill poor people, etc. But no, he wants everyone to be his friend, he wants "bipartisanship" (which means allowing the opposition to sabotage his agenda as they spit in his face). Obama is such a damn failure I just can't get past it. George W. Bush at his most incompetent was better at getting his agenda pushed through (no matter how stupid, illogical and unreasonable it was).
George W. Bush at his most incompetent was better at getting his agenda pushed through (no matter how stupid, illogical and unreasonable it was)
And with a Democratic Congress!
Paul - Exactly! Bush shut out the Dems for 8 long years. Hell Bush wouldn't even let liberal LOBBYISTS have contact with his administration.
The dems have the white house and both houses of Congress, and they care more about republicans joining in to destroy their agenda than getting their agenda passed. It's like a weird battered-wife syndrome. The Dems KNOW the Republicans really love them, even though they don't always (never) show it. And the Dems love the Republicans...who are mean to them BECAUSE they love them.
It's the "He hits me because he loves me" bullshit. Obama is the worst of them. He seems to have this insatiable, irrational desire to be liked by racists who see him as nothing more than a dirty nigger. And he'll destroy his entire presidency to be liked by them. Being the first black president isn't enough for him, he has to get every nigger-hating racist to love him and accept him.
At this point I'm embarrassed for the Democrats and Obama... I just can't watch it any more.
BruceM, Obama wants Republican support to make blame for the program bipartisan. He doesn't want accountability.
BruceM,
Health insurance companies should not be in business.
What is it about people trading that you want to stop?
I don't usually see a Leftist in the wild that isn't completely foamed up, unable to speak but in idiotic slogans leftover from the Bush-hate fabrication plant in Bangladesh, so I'll ask you another question:
What, exactly do you think the health-care market would look like without the government regulation with which we're burdened? Note that this includes association with employer and tax finagling (you can assume a "revenue neutral" tax structure relative to the current one if you wish), Medicare, Medicaid, mandated free ER services (alternatives include no free ER, limited-time charity-funded ER, free for only indigents, etc -- all voluntary), unlimited physician registrations (AMA limits them, and it has this power because of government licensing boards), and I'm sure somebody else can think of something else.
What is it that insurance companies are doing wrong that isn't created by government? Do you understand that risk analysis can't be centralized? Do you understand the role of pricing in a scarce market? Do you understand the point that "positive rights" like a guaranteed privilege of mandated health care insurance coverage requires the government to force people to perform that service upon penalty of imprisonment or death? Do you know that this is exactly what happened in Communist countries where resources dwindled from central planning's necessary failures?
In public the left might say "will not", but I think a lot of people on the left that thought about it believe it will. They just think it's a feature, not a bug.
Hey, I have an idea. Let's act like the only reason a large portion of the country is against the bill is not because it is single payer at a glacial pace, but rather because Sarah Palin said something about a death panel. And then while we are at it, let's repeat the same old tired bullshit about the leaderless, hapless, gormless GOP. Man, is that creative analysis and writing or what?
I've written a lot about why I think health insurance is improper. It's one of a few things that are against public policy and should not be permitted. I'm all for free markets, but some things should not be permitted.
if you want to read my thoughts on this subject, go to http://brucem.livejournal.com... I can't type it all out here, it's somewhat complicated.
I'm all for free markets, but some things should not be permitted.
So you're not just an advocate of central planning, you contradict yourself (within the same sentence) in the hopes that people will ignore the part they don't like and agree with you anyway.
Are you sure your name isn't BarryS and not BruceM?
No Child Left Behind-- bipartisan, written by Ted Kennedy.
Iraq War-- bipartisan
Patriot Act-- bipartisan (Biden claims he wrote it after Oklahoma City bombings and they stole it)
Ag subsidies-- bipartisan
Prescription Drug Benefit-- bipartisan, though Democrats wanted it to spend more
Tax cuts-- bipartisan
John: Not really... the weak and pathetic Democrats were too scared not to sign on to Bush's agenda because it was always "if we don't pass this law everyone will die, and anyone who doesn't support this law wants to kill you." They were afraid of attack ads saying they want to kill Americans, and they want the terrorists to win, etc.
Anonymous: I have not contradicted myself at all. I'm just capable of thinking more deeply than "all or nothing."
"I am generally against limitations on free speech, but a few things like slander, solicitation of a crime, and direct threats should not be allowed" is neither hypocritical nor contradictory.
"all" does not mean "generally"
That's a terrible backtrack, and your attempted insult is hilarious. Maybe you should "think deeply" about the concept of risk management.
That's a way cool paper airplane.
Frank,
yeah, but it doesn't look that stealthy, does it?