The menace of the public option

[beforewisdom]

The Menace Of A Public Option

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/19/ED7B19P06H.DTL

[Ducati]

Not a good correlation. Libraries don't sell books, and bookstores don't loan books.

[Addai]

Not to mention that libraries are supported at a local level, completely stripping all validity of comparison.

It'd be sort of nice if the whole healthcare discussion was kept in one thread. This is the 4th in three days I think.

 

Anywho, silly article by a not very smart person.

[Ducati]

The post office to Fedex & UPS would be a much better analogy.

[Vegan Joe]

The post office to Fedex & UPS would be a much better analogy.

 

The USPS has been independent of the government since 1971. The USPS is still though subject to some government controls and must break even over time with its budget. It does not draw any money from the federal budget for its regular operating budget but a few employees are still eligible to draw money from the old civil service system (CSRS) for their retirement.

The US Postal System is actually a corporation that the government owns. It is self supporting, that is why postage goes up every so often and that the post office is trying to compete in the package business just like UPS and FedX.

............................................................................................................................

Why the Post Office will never make money (and a lesson for health insurance)

By: David Freddoso

Commentary Staff Writer

08/23/09 11:48 AM EDT

 

 

Consider this letter, sent Friday by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. to the Postmaster General.

 

 

Dear Postmaster General Potter: I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent announcement that the United States Postal Service (USPS) is considering closing 37 post offices in Pennsylvania. I am well aware of the financial challenges that the USPS faces, and I am committed to working with the Postal Service to overcome these challenges while preserving jobs and the services on which thousands of Pennsylvanians depend....

 

Casey's letter could be viewed as either a kind offer of help or a threat. Either way, it represents a non-market pressure on the business dealings of the USPS. Could Federal Express or UPS survive, let alone make a profit, if they had politicians breathing down their necks regarding essential business decisions? Could any private business survive in a competitive marketplace under these circumstances? The likely answer is no.

 

This applies in the case of nearly every quasi-governmental venture. Politicians from both parties, beginning with President Clinton and including President Bush, prodded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand the pool of mortgages whose risk they would assume to include the credit-unworthy. We have since reaped the disastrous results of this business decision made for political reasons.

 

The lesson: hybrid government-business ventures have political aims which inevitably come to cross-purposes with their business goals.

 

Along the same lines, consider the much-debated government-run "public option" health insurance plan. Assume, generously, that it will not gouge and ultimately destroy its private competition through predatory pricing. How many lawmakers will pen letters like Casey's, in hopes of micromanaging this government-run insurance company's insurance activities? Can anyone take seriously the Obama administration's claim that a government-run insurance company will not begin receiving taxpayer subsidies, the moment its clients begin demanding additional services from their congressmen?

[VeganEssentials]

I don't like to get into this too much because I think that anything the gov't tries to handle is going to be terrible no matter what, but based on some of the info in the link for "if you have good coverage at this time", showing how good can turn sour very quickly according to some of the ideas of the proposal:

 

Most employers must pay at least 72.5% of the premium for single coverage, and 65% for family coverage. Employers may make higher contributions if they choose.

 

It's already breaking the bank for us to pay 50% for our employees - now they're telling me that I may be required to pay at least 72.5% for the single individuals when it's barely possible to cover 50% and get by? All this on top of how terribly the gov't under the last few administrations has taxed small business into the ground? If you don't own a business, you'll never really know just how bad we get bent over and given the royal shaft, and now it's looking even worse. Way to go, the gov't makes things bad again, but doesn't choose to talk about how this is going to affect your employers negatively in other ways. They choose to only cheer about how you're all going to benefit, but they conveniently don't bring up all the negative possibilities that are likely to come your way if this ever is put into place.

 

Again, these are the kind of things that make me have no faith in the government handling a public option. I WISH that we could all have reasonable health care that wasn't going to thrown an already screwed and unbalanced system into further chaos, but it looks like we're going to continue the grand tradition of making things worse for someone along the way. Yes, the public may have another option based on the rhetoric that comes with the talk of a public option, but for some reason, nobody bothers to think about small business and how it will be affected with more burden of added costs. I foresee many more businesses who are barely able to afford to pay 50% like we do who will drop all coverage in favor of the other option of putting aside a smaller amount for employees to use toward the public option; this essentially gives the employees only ONE viable option, which is what the government wants to give you, because the private option won't be available with your employer paying a portion, which will then put it completely out of the financial reach of almost everyone.

 

These kind of wacky proposals don't make a fair option. They're designed to essentially remove your choices by putting employers in a position where it's more attractive to drop their private option to save money (which, for many businesses, is essential at this time in order to stay afloat), and then you get stuck with whatever the government offers. Again, nothing would be better than if we didn't have to pay out the arse for healthcare, didn't have to worry about coverage or a lack thereof, but the talks about the public option have so many holes that it's undeniable that it just can't work as well as they claim.

 

Reading all this stuff makes my head hurt. Whatever GOOD solution there is for this, it won't be anything like what the government proposes, because that wouldn't be their style. Instead, we'll get another flawed boondoggle that'll drain 10x the money it claims to need, will screw over more people and businesses, and end up in disaster.

[Ducati]

Vegan Joe,

 

And that is essentially how the Public Option will be handle. Just like the Post Office is now.