WSJ: 'The false comparison between the costs of public and private medical plans'

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/04/wsj_the_false_c.php ^

[FromLori]

Ben Sasse, a former Deputy Secretary at HHS during the Bush administration, and Kerry Weems, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid at HHS coauthored this highly informative op-ed today on the hidden costs of public health insurance titled, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap?" (HT - Mark Hemingway):

Congress is currently away on a two-week recess, but weighty work is occurring in its absence. Staff negotiators are trying to come to agreement on a budget framework for 2010 and beyond. Although this is happening behind closed doors, it appears likely that the budget deal will eventually include a government-run health-insurance option, or "public plan," to compete with private health insurance under the comprehensive health-care reform called for by President Barack Obama. Some lawmakers support or oppose a government-run health-insurance option for purely ideological reasons. Others are open to it because they are pragmatic and -- laudably -- want to be persuaded by data and facts. These moderates have been much influenced by the supposed fact that a public plan such as Medicare is more efficient than commercial insurance. Advocates of the public option routinely ask, "Aren't Medicare's administrative costs a fraction of those of private insurers?"

Bu

[SuperLuminal]

Good article in the WSJ for a change.

[1010RD]

Very good. I often debate consultants (left-leaning) who are working to revamp health care. They point to Medicare's low administrative costs and ignore all the hidden costs of the system.

Bottom line: our current system is not perfect, but it is better than government health care.

Like the banking system it is over-regulated which is the main cause of pricing problems.