Haven't We Learned Our Lesson?
The logical answer is no, a public option is not necessary. The federal government should be doing only the 20 activities specified by the Constitution -- and health care is not one of them. Today, actually, more that 50 percent of health care is already delivered by the federal government, if one adds together Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran's Administration, the military, employees of the federal government, etc. And yet all those are fraught with problems (not unlike "civilian health care"). So why would anyone believe a public option would solve problems, control costs and "keep insurers honest"? Haven't we learned our lessons from "managed" care, the postal system and the rail system regarding cost containment by the federal government?
A major answer to the health care dilemma is not imposing a public option but organizing care delivery into integrated systems and providing incentives so that people and organizations don't feel it necessary to "game the system" because the "rules" are conflicting and ambiguous.
One of the many reasons that our health care is so expensive is the massive administrative expense embedded in it. Does anyone seriously think that a government option would be a model of administrative leanness? The public option would still need to document, bill and pay for services just like any other insurance company and physicians are opting out of Medicare and Medicaid now because the reimbursement does not cover their costs. We do not need another "government option." We need to cut costs by reducing variability, streamlining administrative burdens, establishing a nationwide standardized electronic medical record and encouraging physicians to stop providing unnecessary care and tests in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits.
Posted by: lensch | August 7, 2009 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.