The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Public Option or Not, It's Still Government-Run

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Public Option or Not, It's Still Government-Run

By Philip Klein on 8.17.09 @ 1:03PM

Earlier I wrote about the Obama administration's possible backing off of the inclusion of a so-called "public option" in health care legislation. But what's important to emphasize is that even without the creation of a new government plan, we could still be stuck with a government-run health care system. First off, at this point, we don't know how this idea of a non-profit co-op would work -- under some versions, it could easily become a de facto government plan. Even setting that aside, however, the reality is still troubling. The remaining parts of the proposals in Congress would leave us with a system in which government mandates that individuals buy insurance or pay a tax and that employers offer insurance or pay a tax. Then government would have to define what constitutes insurance. Medicaid would be expanded dramatically. The government would be providing subsidies to individuals to purchase insurance, but even if individuals don't qualify for subsidies, at least under the House bill, they would be forced to purchase their insurance from a government-run exchange. And though the policies offered at this exchange would be nominally "private" they would be designed by government bureaucrats. In the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions bill, a new Medical Advisory Council would be tasked with defining “qualifying” coverage; in the House bill, all Americans are required to have coverage that is deemed “acceptable” by a Health Choices Commissioner. No doubt, the creation of a new government-run plan is the easiest way for the country to evolve into a pure single-payer system, but even without one, the proposals being considered would give us a system in which individuals would be forced to purchase government-designed insurance polices from a government store.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:48PM

A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels already installed and in place"" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are "TUPID"

bobdog| 8.17.09 @ 3:32PM

Of COURSE I'll respect you in the morning.

It's time we reined these big government politicians in. They're going to do whatever they think they can get away with and call it something else.

bensalemite| 8.17.09 @ 4:03PM

Somehting has to be done. My family doctor quit because the practice he was forced to join does not allow patients to see him without an appointment- and you cannot get one for at least two weeks. In other words, see the doc after aren't sick.