Public option for healthcare: A delusional fantasy

Some time back on Facebook, I had called the public option for health care a delusional fantasy. I was asked by a fellow blogger to explain. I had stated that I would cover this topic on my blog so that I can go into more detail. Well, getting to that took longer than I expected, so I apologize for that. Anyways, here is why I call a public option a delusional fantasy.

It is a fantasy because to have a "free health care for all" plan will fail by the simple fact that there is simply not enough money to support such a program. We will not be able to tax the rich enough to support it, because there aren't enough rich people to tax. And if you tax them too much (which you will have to do in order to get the funds for the public option), then they will either not be rich anymore, or they will take their money and leave the country. In either instance, we will be "SoL", because then who is left to tax for what will become the motherof all money pits? Ya got it, bucko. The rest of us slobs.

Plus, if employers are given the option of paying a private HMO for its employees vs not paying anything and letting them sign up for the gov't plan, what option do you think they will take? What employer would be willing to take on the added expense of paying for a private HMO for its employees when they wouldn't have to? And what private HMO could stay in business if employers drop them in favor of gov't plans? Those private HMOs will then go out of business, thus leaving the public "option" as the sole remaining option.

The argument that the gov't is simply trying to provide "competition" for private HMOs is a false argument, because there is no way a private HMO can compete with the gov't, who doesn't have to worry about making a profit, thus it can set its own prices - including prices that would be ruinous for private HMOs. This is simple economics that even I know. Soon we will be throwing money at an organization (the gov't HMO, that is) that has no incentive or motivation (like profit) to be doing a professional - or even a good - job in providing your health care.

I call the public option "delusional" because that is exactly what it is to expect that a change from a plan run by profit-mongers - that is, private HMOs - to a plan run by power-mongers - that is, a gov't plan that will become a football in the hands of politicians and lobbyists. Why would we expect that a simple exchange of mongers will make things better? At least with the private HMOs, we can hit them where it hurts by shopping around when they start putting profits ahead of service. Not so when the public option eventually becomes the only option.

Having said all this, this does not suggest that I don't think we need health care reform. Far from it. What I DON'T support is the belief that "health care reform" is totally synonymous with "gov't plan". In fact, I would view them as polar opposites. I am fully aware that private HMOs pull a lot of funny business and I would totally support true health care reform that helped to curb their abuses. More on those alternatives in my next or upcoming blog entry.

Socialized medicine

Someone asked me of my opinion of socialized medicine. Of course, I gave it. ;-)

I think that the concept of socialized medicine is like the t-shirt that says, "One Size Fits All". Of course, we all know that that's impossible; otherwise that same shirt would fit anyone from a 3 year old toddler to a 6 foot 7, 350 lb. man. Socialized medicine is the very same way: It assumes that one national health plan can work for everybody. Usually, countries like Canada, France, England, and Cuba are cited.

However, I think that a federal health program (FHP from here on) - aka socialized medicine - would fail, because it assumes that what works in Rhode Island will work in Texas, and we all know that Rhode Island and Texas couldn't be more different - so why would we assume that that Rhode Islanders and Texans can wear the same "One Size Fits All" t-shirt? This idea only benefits those that favor an Orwellian "Big Brother" concept in which all power is concentrated in a few hands. The U.S. was partially founded to keep power FROM being concentrated in a few hands.

This does not mean, though, that I am against the idea of health insurance for all. The problem with a FHP is that it's thinking too big. Socialized medicine ideally should not go beyond the state level. This is because the states have a better idea of what its citizens need in the way of health coverage than the federal government does. So if New York and California want socialized medicine and all the trappings, then let the citizens of those respective states pay for it. If Texas or Michigan want to let private HMOs handle it, then so be it. They could require, though, that the private HMOs cover EVERYBODY.

Thus, each state can be free to experiment with different health insurance programs to see what works best. This is much, much better than an imposed FHP in which ALL states must bear the burden of any flaws of whatever FHP that the federal government decides to adopt. With state-level programs, only those respective states would suffer the flaws of their respective programs.

But there would still be a role for the federal government: They can play the role of watchdog, ready to come down, for instance, on private HMOs when they fail to live up to promises, or a state when it falters on its insurance programs. In essence, the feds can be a sort of referee. In order for any of this to happen, though, we all really need to pressure our representatives into looking in that direction. Not an easy task, to be sure, but at it's said - nothing worthwhile comes easy.