The 'Private Option'

If you've followed the health insurance reform debate, then you may be aware that some progress has been made recently towards passing a bill through the Senate.

There have been a few changes, I believe, but the one that has caught my attention is the admission by Pelosi and others that the creation of a 'public option' may be removed from the bill in favor of an alternate non-profit insurance plan managed by a private organization.

I'm torn. I was in favor of a public option since the beginning of the debate (after acknowledging that a single-payer system would not, could not pass in this political climate); however, I could certainly be convinced that the simple fact that it would be administered by a public organization is insignificant. Afterall, the point isn't that it would be public -- the point is that the plan would be operated as a non-profit [thereby allowing decreased cost] and would be intended to discourage wasteful medical procedures [via strict reporting/medical necessity checks -- already a common practice].

The private option should be non-profit; I definitely agree with that detail. The problem I see, however, is that a private organization, left to its means, may be more willing to allow cost increases than a private institution might -- especially in the area of employee and management compensation.

To be fair, it's not safe to suggest that a publicly-run insurance organization would work to keep wages and expenses as low as possible. The key difference, however, is that Congress, the Senate, or the President can institute cost-control measures that would legally require thriftiness. This would be more difficult when operated as a private entity.

Consider: the goal is to decrease cost. Both sides of the political aisle agree that the government should do something to make it so. There are a few ways this could be accomplished -- the current government seems to have decided that a new insurance plan is necessary. Fine, that is one of a few suitable options. How can we expect the government's plan to be carried out successfully if the government is not allowed to control the newly created insurance plan?

If you're one of the people who won't trust the government, or is afraid of death panels, or who is afraid of the socialist/Marxist program Obama is instituting...I'm sorry. YOU LOST. The majority of the country is not on your side. You are in the minority.

Maybe you have great insurance coverage [you probably don't like it, actually] -- the goal of health insurance reform is not to make your life better; it is to help foster an environment in which all Americans can get insurance. Certainly there are other methods to reach this goal -- I definitely feel so. However, the official government opposition (that's you, 40 Republican senators) have failed to provide a reasonable alternative. One might even question whether they've tried.