From an oped by Paul Duncan
"To be sure, if the same public program that competes with the private entities also gets to write and enforce the rules of the competition, that might create a problem. But almost all serious observers anticipate that the public program alternative currently being proposed will not also control the regulatory framework in which services are offered; it will simply be available as another option, and will survive only if it can succeed as a genuine alternative to those private companies. "
Read Op-Ed here.
Can we say delusional?
Let's take a look at how public plans work here and around the world. Do they compete like the postal service (oh sorry, no real competition) or do they set the prices and lowball providers and then just expand budgets in response to demand generated at taxpayer expense without regard to profitability, waste, corruption.
Does Medicaid compete? Medicare? How about the Indian Health Service?
Further, we already have public options such as Medicaid and SCHIP. What we don't have are more private choices that promote prevention and well-being and that should be the point of reform.
Making the government the lowball option is a bait and switch that will eliminate individual choices of health care plans. Why? Government's can tax and spend without the timely accountability that only a private choice based system protects.
Aetna's profits declined this year because it lowered prices to gain market share even as it spent more on medical services, disease management and prevention. Reform should encourage more of this and build on such efforts rather than kill them.
That's what is at stake. And more.
"To be sure, if the same public program that competes with the private entities also gets to write and enforce the rules of the competition, that might create a problem. But almost all serious observers anticipate that the public program alternative currently being proposed will not also control the regulatory framework in which services are offered; it will simply be available as another option, and will survive only if it can succeed as a genuine alternative to those private companies. "
Read Op-Ed here.
Can we say delusional?
Let's take a look at how public plans work here and around the world. Do they compete like the postal service (oh sorry, no real competition) or do they set the prices and lowball providers and then just expand budgets in response to demand generated at taxpayer expense without regard to profitability, waste, corruption.
Does Medicaid compete? Medicare? How about the Indian Health Service?
Further, we already have public options such as Medicaid and SCHIP. What we don't have are more private choices that promote prevention and well-being and that should be the point of reform.
Making the government the lowball option is a bait and switch that will eliminate individual choices of health care plans. Why? Government's can tax and spend without the timely accountability that only a private choice based system protects.
Aetna's profits declined this year because it lowered prices to gain market share even as it spent more on medical services, disease management and prevention. Reform should encourage more of this and build on such efforts rather than kill them.
That's what is at stake. And more.
