Letter to the Editor

[cos]

Last night, I submitted this as a letter to the editor to USA Today:

For decades, private for-profit insurance companies have been spreading fear about "government run health insurance". Despite the fact that people on Medicare - run by the government - are more satisfied with their insurance than people on private insurance, the private insurance companies have been telling us that national health care wouldn't work, because the government can't run a good insurance system, and we're all better off with private insurance. Obama's plan puts their claims to the test, and it's time to put up or shut up.

Obama proposes a compromise between a national single payer system, and the private insurance we have now: he wants to put a public health insurance option in the same market as private companies, to let people choose and see what works better.

Insurance companies' complaints about "unfair competition" are a smokescreen. They want to mislead us into a conversation about how to be fair to insurance companies, while they continue being unfair to the American people.

What the for-profit insurance companies are really saying is that they fear the government can run a better health insurance - that satisfies people more, and leaves us healthier, at a lower cost. They may be right. Congress owes it to us to create a public option so we can try it and find out. Stop worrying about the health of the insurance companies, and care for the health of the American people for a change.

Comments

[yix.livejournal.com]

nicely said.

[daniel-t-miles.livejournal.com]

While I agree that I don't care what's fair to the insurance companies, I think you've missed the point about what they mean by fair.

The funding models for public insurance are very different because, like all our progressive taxes (where progressive means the shape of the tax curve, not the name of a political movement), public health care is redistributive. That is to say that the wealthy pay more for it than the poor do but everyone has equal access. Since an insurance company can't manage its funds that way or even manage its risk-pool that way, it isn't fair.

But I think THAT'S the smoke-screen. It's a GOOD thing that it isn't fair, not being fair is how we get better coverage.

[fenicedautun.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it's totally a smokescreen. Yes, many of the claims are untrue. But insurance companies are public companies, meaning that they have to yield a decent rate of return on capital, and some of that capital comes from the liquidity market with a cost. The government will have both a lower cost of capital, and a lower required rate of return, meaning there is some unevenness of the playing field. (On the other hand, the government is also hobbled by several things which will level that playing field again, but we're not allowed to talk about those ;)

My biggest hope (and feel free to talk to docorion for a long dissertation on the topic) is that a government plan could change the game by changing the compensation structure for healthcare providers. Not currently likely, but a government plan now would make it easier to make those changes in a few years....

[alandd.livejournal.com]

The private health insurance "ecosystem" is one of the best examples of where unregulated capitalism goes against the public good.

That's a buzzword compliant restating and expansion of what fenicedautun said about them being public companies - they are responsible to their shareholders, not their customers. That is generally considered appropriate in the context of capitalism, but the other important part of capitalism - a free market for competition - is less evident.

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

Very nice.

[2d00r.livejournal.com]

Lessee.

Yes and no to Medicare, but, I think that's a talking point for later. I just view it different because I have a couple ~70 year old parents, who have 3 supp. policies atop Medicare. I just think it's a boarder line debate and I really don't know that I have an opinion I feel is defendable.

My problem with the current PUSH for a government run health care system: the PUSH part. If the previous administration taught anyone anything, wouldn't that be that not everything is a OMG EMERGENCY. This seems to be going fast. Too fast, the reps don't even seem to have a grasp of the current draft bill. Canada, has a pop of about ~30Mil, UK about that, Germany, around there. The US is a factor of magnitude larger, and realistically both the UK and CA are much more civilized when talking politically then we are. Maybe sending some reps from say the AMA to go have a conversation with the NHS about what works and what doesn't. It just seems really rushed, and by really rushed I mean more rushed then that.

From the folks I've talked to around here who aren't waiving pom poms and cheering for this proposal that seems to be the major sticking point. More of a WHOA not a NO. I just think that popular media doesn't focus on those folks because they're not as entertaining as the 'Der Obama is gunna kill mai granny!' people.

Anyhoo if The President wants this to be his legacy, I think that's great. I just don't think that our government has had a great track record over quick action over the past 9 years and maybe a bit more planning and thought are required.

Personally aside from the speed at which it's being pushed, my biggest problem with it is certain religious folks being exempt from the tax, the coverage, and the penalty.

[miraclaire.livejournal.com]

Nicely put!

[daniel-t-miles.livejournal.com]

So I've read all these comments and I want to use them to underscore my own point. Insurance companies complain about "unfair competition" from a public health plan. I've yet to see anything on this page, either in Cos's origional post or in any of the comments about why that complaint is wrong, you all seem to agree that the public option isn't fair.

Trouble is, none of you are saying that explicitly. You're all silently moving on to the next stage of the argument about how it's OK that it isn't fair. There's a LOT of power in the words, "you're right about that." It could even pull the debate out of the quagmire a little bit. Lets not squander it.

Please keep the info coming.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

You seem more in tune to what's going on activism-wise than most of the people I know. From where I sit, the picture looks kind of scary and very confusing. Are the bad guys winning? I can never tell. Is there more that I can or should do? I'd love to hear about that as well.

Thanks for all you've done so far...

[laurens10.livejournal.com]

Very well said!