The return of the public option to the health-care reform effort should help bring the debate back to lowering costs for consumersa missing element lately.
After President Barack Obama got squeamish on the public option, the focus of reform shifted to the understandable goal of remaining “cost- neutral,” meaning that health care reform shouldn’t add to the mushrooming federal debt.
While we absolutely agree that reform shouldn’t add to deficit spending, we’ve been concerned that the predominant bills being discussed in the Senate weren’t going to reduce or even stabilize the price tag of health insurance for those already paying it.
While expanding health care to more Americans is essential, without containing health costs across the board the nation’s economic future still would be imperiled.
The current system of rate hikes is unsustainable, and the status quo will help bankrupt the country and the private businesses that no longer will be able to afford to offer health care insurance because of the spiraling costs.
We were pleased to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in recent days present legislation that includes a public option.
Without the strong competition a public option will offer the health insurance giants that dominate the landscape, we see little chance that costs will diminish.
That’s the theory. Now it’s up to our elected officials to fine-tune the details to accomplish that goal, especially considering the differing versions of the public option that appear in the House and Senate bills are weaker than originally presented.
Reid’s bill says states can opt out of the public option. Pelosi originally wanted to tie the government option’s reimbursement rates to those set in Medicare.
Now Pelosi would have the Health and Human Services secretary negotiate rates with providers. The change seeks to placate moderate Democrats and is a better fit with the Senate’s bill.
A big difference between the bills is that Pelosi’s doesn’t tax the so-called “Cadillac Plans” that offer broad and expensive coverage. Reid’s bill does tax them, under the theory that doing so would create incentives for employees and private insurers to shop for thriftier plans.
Another key difference is that the House bill would tax individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples who make more than $1 million. The Senate bill does not.
Both bills would dramatically expand coverage in part by offering subsidies to moderate and lower income earners.
Opponents say the public option is a sneaky way to socialize the nation’s medical system, because the taxpayer-supported insurer, with its lower costs, would eventually become the only game in town. But we think the public option would force private insurers to find innovations to stay in business and thus lower costs.
A strong public option is the best way to slow escalating health care costs and expand access to care.
