Posted by
Dave Smith on Friday, October 30, 2009 10:29:59 AM
In response to
this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:
re: Preferred option: Public option should be part of health care reform -- with no opt-out by states
I was disappointed (though not surprised) to see the Chronicle
editorial board endorse the so-called "public option" -- a
government-run health insurance program, based on mandates and
prohibitions, to supposedly provide "meaningful competition" in the
health insurance marketplace. Unfortunately, it isn't freedom in the
marketplace that limits competition; rather, government mandates
against buying across state lines and against group plans limit the
pool of competitors. If government were to remove those barriers,
consumers would instantly have more options in a competitive
marketplace.
But the Chronicle goes further beyond the
pale when it advocates a "public option" that is modeled on the
Medicare system, claiming that it "provides for seniors in an efficient
and cost-effective way". Apparently the Chronicle editorialists haven't read the 2009 Report of the Medicare Trustees (available at www.ssa.gov),
which talks about "growing deficits", "financial difficulties" and says
that Medicare "again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy"
and "continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance
by a wide margin". Medicare is a looming financial disaster, neither
"cost effective" nor "efficient".
President Obama himself said
it best when he pointed out that it is the US Post Office that is
consistently having financial and operational difficulties, not FedEx
or UPS. The answer to opening up a competitive marketplace for health
insurance isn't more government mandates and prohibitions, it is more
power in the hands of consumers. The "public option" does not help the
public.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX