As long as the goal of our current health insurance corporations is "profit" and not your "health" , the almighty dollar always comes first. The B.S. being spouted that they want to maintain the doctor patient relationship is just that, B.S. .If you need an expensive operation that decision is not made by your doctor, It is made by a secondary faceless doctor of your insurance company .Those "doctors" get financial incentives to justify not approving your operation. , The Heath Care corporations are not interested in saving "you" , they are interested in saving "money" .
- 1
- 2
A public plan will reduce costs and improve access
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
You steal second by recognizing that virtually every objective study has concluded that it will reduce cost in the system—for everyone. The Commonwealth Fund, one of the most respected foundations in the country, recently reported that employer premiums could be substantially lowered with the choice of a public health-insurance plan; a typical American family could save nearly $1,000 a year in reduced premiums alone. If containing costs is one of our biggest goals, how can we not do this?
You take third by showing that a public plan will guarantee improved access to our health-care system. Today more than 47 million Americans have no health insurance at some point during the year. Nearly 50 percent of all Americans don't have the coverage they expect to have when they seek the care they need. A public plan will virtually eliminate the industry practice of rejecting someone based upon health status or ability to pay. Even more, it maximizes portability (without reliance on employment). Finally, as Medicare patients have demonstrated time and time again, they have significantly better access to doctors for routine care of illness or injury than those on employer-based plans do.
You head home by explaining that a public plan is much more likely to be innovative. Expect it to follow the VA model, with the rapid incorporation of health-information technology and electronic medical records. Expect it to employ best practices— and put as much emphasis on wellness as it does illness.
Opponents oftentimes use as their primary argument against a public plan that it presents unfair competition to private insurance companies. I have little doubt that we can level the competitive playing field. Nevertheless, we must realize that reforming the health-care system is, first and foremost, for the American people—not the companies that profit from it.
One final word to the opposing team from the coach's corner: with health reform, Americans are likely going to have some kind of choice. Allow a public health-insurance plan or accept the fact that you are in for far more regulation as we construct a new system without it. With real competition, potentially far less regulation is warranted.
Our team is ready to play; it is a new season, and we've waited a long time. The American people have seen affordable health care for all as something out of "Field of Dreams," and they like what they see. Build it and they will come.
Daschle, a former Senate majority leader, is author of “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis.”
© 2009
- 1
- 2










Discuss