Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
The ‘public option’ will destroy choice
The ‘public option’ will destroy choice
Oct 9, 2024 10:17 AM

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has made it abundantly clear that he opposes the "Medicare for All" model of health reform favored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Instead, Biden proposes creating a public insurance option that pete against private insurers on Obamacare's exchanges.

On its face, this plan might seem sensible. Unlike Medicare for All, a public option would not abolish private insurance. It would just give people one more choice of insurance coverage.

But Biden's public option would upend our health sector in ways that impose real costs on patients and providers alike. In the end, it would yield the same kind of single-payer system that the former vice president has explicitly rejected.

The Biden campaign has outlined in some detail what its government-run health plan would entail. The public option would be administered by Medicare. It would include at least one plan with no deductible. It would charge no co-pays for primary care. e Americans who are not eligible for Medicaid would be enrolled automatically. And all Americans – even those eligible for coverage through their employers – would be free to sign up.

This model is tailor-made to negate the mon objections to Medicare for All.

For example, most voters are not eager to see private insurance disappear. According to recent polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 56% of the country is in favor of Medicare for All. Support drops to 37% when Americans learn that it would outlaw private insurance.

Biden is well aware of this public opinion data. It is why part of his pitch is that he will not take away Americans' existing coverage. That pitch is popular. Two-thirds of the country – including 44% of Republicans – say they favor a public option.

But their support is misguided. "If you like your plan, you can keep it" was not true under Obamacare. And it will not be true under Biden's plan, either.

The reason is simple. A public option would not have to cover its costs, much less turn a profit. The federal Treasury could plug any holes on its balance sheet. That would give the public option a significant advantage over private insurers, who do not have the luxury of running losses in perpetuity.

Further, the public option would reimburse doctors and hospitals at rates similar to those of Medicare. Those rates are artificially low, because the government has the power to essentially dictate what it will pay. Indeed, hospitals receive just 87 cents from the federal government for every dollar they spend providing care to Medicare's beneficiaries.

Private insurers do not have that kind of "negotiating" leverage. So, healthcare providers charge them more – both because they can, and because they need to make up for government underpayments somehow. In 2018, private insurers paid hospitals 247% more for the same services than Medicare did, according to a recent analysis from the RAND Corporation.

These two cost advantages would give the public option a leg up on the petition. The public plan could attract customers with low premiums that private insurers could not hope to match. Privately insured consumers would understandably drop their coverage and switch to the cheaper public option.

Biden's plan also strikes a severe blow against the 165 million Americans who have employer-sponsored health insurance by allowing those who have access to coverage through work to decline it – and hop onto the public option. Right now, people eligible for affordable coverage through their employers cannot get taxpayer-subsidized coverage through the exchanges.

Biden's offer may prove tantalizing to people who see a significant chunk of their paycheck get deducted to cover their share of the premium. The public option may seem like a better deal.

Employers, meanwhile, may decide that they'd prefer not to continue spending huge sums on health insurance. They could end up nudging their employees into the exchanges, with a mendation that they check out the public option.

That is the scenario sketched out in a recent study by KNG Health Consulting. Researchers estimate that one-quarter of those currently insured by their employer would move over to a public option plan by 2032. Some would make the transition voluntarily. In most cases, employers would simply stop offering coverage.

A booming public option is bad news for doctors and hospitals. They can ill afford seeing their high-paying, privately insured customers e low-paying, publicly insured ones. A separate KNG Health Consulting study estimates that hospitals’ payments could fall by $774 billion over 10 years under a public option.

A 2016 paper from the Congressional Budget Office projected that between 40 and 60% of the nation’s hospitals were on track to e money-losing operations by 2025. A public option would likely push them further into the red.

pensate, they might try to raise rates on their remaining privately insured customers. But private insurers would pass those rate hikes onto consumers in the form of higher premiums. Those consumers would respond by cancelling their private coverage and switching to the public option. And the cycle would repeat.

Eventually, the public option would swallow up the entire market. Biden's plan to give Americans another health insurance choice would end up leaving them with only one choice.

This may be a roundabout way for the government to eliminate private insurance and take over the health insurance sector. But the final e is no different than Sen. Sanders’ explicit vision of Medicare for All.

Mabel. This photo has been cropped. CC BY-SA 3.0.)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY
Adam Smith and the Poor
Adam Smith did not seem to think that riches were requisite to happiness: “the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for” (The Theory of Moral Sentiments). But he did not mend beggary. The beggar here is not any beggar, but Diogenes the Cynic, who asked of Alexander the Great only to step back so as not to cast a shadow upon Diogenes as he reclined alongside the highway....
Mistaken About Poverty
Perhaps it is because America is the land of liberty and opportunity that debates about poverty are especially intense in the United States. Americans and would-be Americans have long been told that if they work hard enough and persevere they can achieve their dreams. For many people, the mere existence of poverty—absolute or relative—raises doubts about that promise and the American experiment more generally. Is it true that America suffers more poverty than any other advanced democracy in the...
Up from the Liberal Founding
During the 20th century, scholars of the American founding generally believed that it was liberal. Specifically, they saw the founding as rooted in the political thought of 17th-century English philosopher John Locke. In addition, they saw Locke as a primarily secular thinker, one who sought to isolate the role of religion from political considerations except when necessary to prop up the various assumptions he made for natural rights. These included a divine creator responsible for a rational world for...
How Dispensationalism Got Left Behind
Whether we like it or not, Americans, in one way or another, have all been indelibly shaped by dispensationalism. Such is the subtext of Daniel Hummel’s provocative telling of the rise and fall of dispensationalism in America. In a little less than 350 pages, Hummel traces how a relatively insignificant Irishman from the Plymouth Brethren, John Nelson Darby, prompted the proliferation of dispensational theology, especially its eschatology, or theology of the end times, among our ecclesiastical, cultural, and political...
Creating an Economy of Inclusion
The poor have been the main subject of concern in the whole tradition of Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic Church talks often about a “preferential option for the poor.” In recent years, many of the Church’s social teaching documents have been particularly focused on the needs of the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries. The first major analysis of this topic could be said to have been in the papal encyclical Populorum Progressio, published in 1967 by Pope...
Jesus and Class Warfare
Plenty of Marxists have turned to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Memorable examples include the works of F.D. Maurice and Zhu Weizhi’s Jesus the Proletarian. After criticizing how so many translations of the New Testament soften Jesus’ teachings regarding material possessions, greed, and wealth, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has gone so far to ask, “Are Christians supposed to be Communists?” In the Huffington Post, Dan Arel has even claimed that “Jesus was clearly a Marxist,...
C.S. Lewis and the Apocalypse of Gender
From very nearly the beginning, Christianity has wrestled with the question of the body. Heretics from gnostics to docetists devalued physical reality and the body, while orthodox Christianity insisted that the physical world offers us true signs pointing to God. This quarrel persists today, and one form it takes is the general confusion among Christians and non-Christians alike about gender. Is gender an abstracted idea? Is it reducible to biological characteristics? Is it a set of behaviors determined by...
Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church
Religion & Liberty: Volume 33, Number 4 Spurgeon and the Poverty-Fighting Church by Christopher Parr • October 30, 2023 Portrait of Charles Spurgeon by Alexander Melville (1885) Charles Spurgeon was a young, zealous 15-year-old boy when he came to faith in Christ. A letter to his mother at the time captures the enthusiasm of his newfound Christian faith: “Oh, how I wish that I could do something for Christ.” God granted that wish, as Spurgeon would e “the prince of...
Conversation Starters with … Anne Bradley
Anne Bradley is an Acton affiliate scholar, the vice president of academic affairs at The Fund for American Studies, and professor of economics at The Institute of World Politics. There’s much talk about mon good capitalism” these days, especially from the New Right. Is this long overdue, that a hyper-individualism be beaten back, or is it merely cover for increasing state control of the economy? Let me begin by saying that I hate “capitalism with adjectives” in general. This...
Lord Jonathan Sacks: The West’s Rabbi
In October 1798, the president of the United States wrote to officers of the Massachusetts militia, acknowledging a limitation of federal rule. “We have no government,” John Adams wrote, “armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, and revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” The nation that Adams had helped to found would require the parts of the body...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2024 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved