Government sponsored health care sure seems like a bad idea, but reading this article definitely has me intrigued.
"Obama's campaign proposal -- a foundation for Democrats in Congress -- called for setting up a national insurance marketplace through which individuals and small businesses could buy coverage. People could pick private insurance or opt for a government plan that would resemble coverage for federal employees.
A recent analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that sponsors health care research, is giving supporters of a public plan some ammunition.
The study estimated costs and coverage under a hypothetical health reform plan similar to what Obama proposed in the campaign. It found that a public plan like Medicare could reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over an 11-year period. Premiums in the public plan would be at least 20 percent lower, partly because of reduced administrative costs. Within a decade or so, some 105 million people would be in the public plan, compared with about 107 million with private insurance."
The overall principle of increased choices and competition is terrific for the consumer in general. I am not sure why any Republican would really be against that principle.
"I'm concerned that if the government steps in, it will eventually push out the private health care plans millions of Americans enjoy today," Republican Rep. Roy Blunt said in the Republican weekly radio address.
Blunt, who will play a leading role in the debate, warned: "This could cause your employer to simply stop offering coverage, hoping the government will pick up the slack."
If private insurance companies are inefficient to the point of 20%, I am all for increased competition, even if it is coming from the government. I certainly do not feel bad for the insurance companies in these instances. If the government can actually do something more efficient, and we are given the option of paying into this system or not, I don't see how the over whelming majority of Americans could lose out?
Of course, this article makes no mention of covering the uninsured. Is it possible we could get receive a 20% reduction in premiums while covering people who are not paying into the system? Or is that concept off the table? Unlikely to both...but I am definitely listening.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
No comments:
Post a Comment