Become informed and defend your freedoms.  This is a website for citizens by an independent citizen.

Public Option will lead to a Single Payer System

Obamacare:  a breakdown

With all of the proposals, Bills in Congress, and views for healthcare reform, it quite confusing.  The basics of what has been called Obamacare are fairly constant, and easily analyzed. Much of what is happening in Congress is about how to structure a bill that will appear to the public to be doable, affordable, etc. Most of the attempts have however been focused on preserving some basic approaches.

Here is a 4 point breakdown of Obamacare and what previous conditions elsewhere that sheds light on the effectiveness of that policy.   This however is not a substitute for the overriding concern expressed in many ways elsewhere in this website, and that is, for the concern that increasing government control in any manner in healthcare, over the 47% expenditure control of today, would just increase the costs and reduce quality. This would in turn lead to rationing after further wage and price controls.   Other limitations are detailed in this Article by Scott Atlas.

First point:  employee and employer mandates for insurance.  This is what has been done in part in Medicare, requiring all over 65 to take Medicare, and also in MASSACHUSETTS.   Both approaches have increased costs significantly, and contributed to the bad condition of healthcare today.    

Second point:  Public option to compete with private insurance.  The crowd out effect has been well argued in other pages.   The role of the public option is to install more government controls over the requirements on insurance company policies.  It is a means also to establish cost controls through price fixing, and as well give users and employers an option for the subsidized healthcare that insurance companies cannot provide.   The outcome of this option is the crowding out of private insurance and the inevitable rationing of care.     

Third Point:  establish a nation wide Healthcare exchange, a government controlled market place for individuals to go to buy insurance.  This is a means for government to set requirements and to add more controls in the future.    This is not a cost cutting measure but a restriction in how the market works.  It would be expected to increase costs.  It has been tried in Massachusetts.

Fourth Point: is the establishment of comparative effectiveness board, like NICE in England.  Having centralized control of allowed treatments gives the government control of what treatments are permitted.   This takes the decision out of the hands of the doctor/patient and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats.  It does not work in England.  Furthermore it is a means to implement rationing, as is done in various countries.    

It is impossible to maintain cost controls, choice, and technology development with the above points implemented.  It leads to Post Office healthcare.  The growth in complexity is graphically shown in chart form.  It will also lead to government controlling the entire industry, its wages, prices, practices, and as well the sense of entitlement in the American people will grow until the system fails due to a lack of sufficient care.  Having the government establish this monopsony in healthcare cannot be good for the American people.   Is crowd out the price to be paid for efficiency of the group buy?   The answer is No.  See Crowd out and WSJ article on Public Option.

For more related articles, check the list at right.