Why the Less Disruptive Health Care (Public Option) Could Be Plenty Disruptive

New York Times ^ | December 3, 2019 | Margot Sanger-Katz

[karpov]

...

A public option would be less disruptive than a plan that instantly eliminated private insurance. But a public option that is inexpensive and attractive could shake up the private market and also wind up erasing some current insurance arrangements. Conversely, a public option that is expensive and unattractive might not do much good at all.

“The political appeal of the public option is it preserves the choice of private insurance,” said Larry Levitt, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But the better it works, then the less likely it is to actually preserve a private insurance market.”

Most Democratic presidential candidates favor public-option plans, not just Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg. Ms. Warren recently released one, too — part of her “transition plan” to single-payer. (Mr. Sanders has long had a public option tucked into his Medicare for All Act, to expand coverage for the four years before a single-payer system kicks in.) Public opinion surveys show that public-option plans command higher support than single-payer plans, even among Democrats.

The basic idea behind a public option is that it would have certain advantages over private insurance. But most of the public-option plans are a little vague about how strong those would be. The government is able to pay doctors and hospitals lower prices for Medicare patients than most private insurance does because it sets the prices and covers so many people.

A public option, by contrast, would cover a smaller population at first, and might have to negotiate with hospitals for good deals, just as other insurance companies do. In those circumstances, several economists said, the public option might look a lot like existing insurance: pretty expensive, and covering a limited set of doctors and hospitals.

[SunkenCiv]

"Listen up! The point of a government health care system isn't about establishing better health care, it's about establishing a system. Get with it, people. Ah, here's my limo."

[Gay State Conservative]

Canada has a close copy of "Medicare For All". In at least one Province )British Columbia) one can wait up to a year for at least one type of heart surgery. My niece needed heart surgery...not a "stat" situation but genuinely needed.She waited about 24 hours.

In many parts of Canada one can wait 6 months or more for a hip replacement. I've had both of mine replaced...I waited less than a week...both times.

[DugwayDuke]

The public option is the camels nose in the tent. If it is successful enough then private companies will drop their private industry coverage and force their employees into the public option.