The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : NY Times Endorses Government Health Care "Option"

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

NY Times Endorses Government Health Care "Option"

By Philip Klein on 4.7.09 @ 11:31AM

In what shouldn't come as a surprise, the New York Times editorializes today in favor of a government-run option as part of the overhaul of the health care system. The argument is typical of the type of reasoning that you'd expect from the Times -- for instance, it suggests that the so-called "public option" be modeled after Medicare, then notes: "A public plan might do a better job of slowing the growth of health care costs, although Medicare has not been notably successful in that regard."

The key mistake the Times makes in the editorial is to perpetuate this idea that Americans would actually be given a "choice" over whether to have government or private insurance. But if it is open to all employers, then many businesses would simply choose to dump their employees onto the government plan. Since about 64 percent of covered Americans obtain their insurance through their employers, many Americans would effectively be left with no choice but to enroll. The Lewin Group report I noted yesterday found that if a public plan were created, the number of people with private insurance would shrink by two-thirds, or 119.1 million people.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 12:27PM

"But if it is open to all employers, then many businesses would simply choose to dump their employees onto the government plan."

So take it up with your employer.

I really don't get the wingnut opposition to this plan. If you don't like the government plan stick with the plan you have. It's that simple.

After all we cover everyone now. Just ask George Bush. All one needs to do is go to the emergency room. It's just horribly inefficient and costly.

This is an attempt to cut costs. And I think it's an excellent start.

And it just tickles the hell out of me that the wingnuts fear the government plan will be so much cheaper. Tell me, what is wrong with that? You can still but all the private insurance that you want.

JHarpIsATroll| 4.7.09 @ 2:05PM

We're really getting sick of your BS, jharp. You lie and lie and lie and then lie some more. A govt. healthcare 'option' isn't a real choice at all because it would crowd out everything else. Admit you're a fascist.

Bob| 4.7.09 @ 2:22PM

So let me get this straight. If both companies and individuals choose to go to a plan because it is less expensive, that is somehow not market based? Are you saying that private insurers cannot compete with a government run system? I thought most of you believed the government couldn't run anything efficiently. If that is true, then people will go back to regular insurance companies. Isn't that the way the market works?

You guys are beginning to sound a lot like libs. You are afraid something might work and want to legislate against it. If businesses think they will be more competitive this way, then clearly this would increase the number of jobs and lower prices. Isn't that good for the economy?

I don't understand the logic of your arguments. As long as this isn't mandated and YOU have a choice, let the games begin.

Bob| 4.7.09 @ 4:00PM

Troll -- perhaps you can explain why it is a false choice. Your position is based on ideology and fear, not reason and pragmatism. I'll bet you didn't even consider the positive effect it may have on business.

Personally, I don't know if it will work. However, we need to do something to lower the cost of health care in this country before all of the manufacturing jobs leave and the unemployment rate jumps even higher.