While cruising the latest news about health care and the public option, I came across an ABC story. The article notes the main point of contention is the public option. But there are a few things they don't talk about. They ask you to do that.
The ABC story doesn't address how the public option will drive down cost. Nor do they address the issue of influence peddling by the insurance lobby and how the real debate is how to deliver a form of insurance that leaves the insurance companies more profitable. And they don't talk about how much time insurance companies force us to spend defending good claims they routinely disallow. Or how medical practitioners are impacted by the same process. Or how they take money for insurance and then scrounge for a preexisting condition of some sort to keep from paying out. They don't talk about insurance bureaucrats standing between the patient and the doctor. Nor do they talk about the fact that insurance profit from denying coverage and are protected from malpractice when their medical advice goes horribly wrong.
They ask you to do that. They want to hear from you.
Here is the link.
Here is the link to the story itself.
Why not give them an ear full?
There is one thing they did note worth quoting here:
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 23 million Americans would migrate from employer-based health care plans or other plans to a government public health care plan if one were offered. A study by health consulting firm the Lewin Group found that if a government-run plan paid at the same rate as Medicare, 70 percent of consumers currently with private insurers would jump ship for the public program.
Ah. What a wonderful model we have. Most everyone would prefer something different. What is the debate again?
Mrick