One thing that I didn’t take away from the news reports today about Harry Reid’s announcement about the inclusion of a public option in the bill that will be presented to the Senate for a floor vote is this:

REID’S BILL ONLY ALLOWS PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PUBLIC OPTION


I highlight that because one of the main arguments in favor of a public option has been the cost pressure that a public option would exert on the private “health” insurance market due to the potential scale of a real public option that ANYONE could choose to opt into.

If the public option is only available to a tiny slice of the American people, this “economies of scale” argument gets dramatically weakened.

Just something to bear in mind while pondering the convoluted legislative goulash the spineless schmuck in charge of the Senate put out there today.

h/t to The Rachel Maddow Show and Senator Ron Wyden (from my home state of Oregon) for casting this in the light I describe above.

Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  
  1. schu says:

    Sigh, as I said before, one of the biggest crooks and lairs in congress is in charge of dressing up something to look like a public option and sell it to the American public as health care reform.

  2. Teramis says:

    And yet -- I think *any* option that stands outside the traditional health insurance complex stands to compete with it, especially because as more small businesses continue to drop or cut insurance they can no longer afford, and individuals drop out of insurance programs they can no longer afford (and this is an endemic pattern, now) -- these will also become eligible for the public option.

    At the end of the day, a public option is so rigidly opposed by vested interests because it, alone, is the thing with the power to break the back of the insurance industry monoply over the American public. Almost any form of public option will ultimately achieve this, because any form is a foothold, and it is the crack in the door for future enhancements, amendments, expansions, etc. The industry is fighting tooth and claw to prevent that toehold, itself, because they know what it will portend.

    So I say, to almost any form of public option: go team. It's the appropriate stick in the eye to the monopolistic insurance industry. Now in small measure, perhaps, but later, in greater (as long as progressives in Congress continue to fight for it and expand that toehold.)

  3. Teramis says:

    So what? The issue of "mandatory" insurance and penalties and incentives surrounding it is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not a public option exists as an option, and the effect that lever has on the existing coverage monopoly.

    Personally I'm opposed to the govt mandating the purchase of insurance. If it's affordable (and that is the key concept), most people will buy in, and if most people have insurance (because they are no longer denied or kicked out of programs by insurers, or lack access entirely), I don't buy the industry's argument that they can't afford to offer pre-existing condition coverage unless "everyone is required" to have insurance. That isn't the case in other countries that have public options, and it needn't be the case here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors