Health reform debate in the papers

Seattle Times comes out for public-health insurance option

“Creation of a public-health-insurance option is central to the health-care reform debate underway in Congress,” the Seattle Times editors write in today’s issue. “Consumers need a competitive choice that is affordable, portable and fairly priced.”

To learn more:

• Read the Seattle Times editorial: Include a public-health insurance option.
• The Kaiser Family Foundation has created an interactive Web page where you can compare different health reform proposals side-by-side. To use, visit the Foundation’s Health Reform page.
• Read Kaiser Health News reporter Mary Agnes Carey’s article “Consumer Guide to Health Care Reform“, which ran earlier in LocalHealthGuide.

New York Times supports a public health plan as well.

In this Sunday’s New York Times, the paper’s editors argue for including a public-health insurance plan in any health-reform package coming out of Congress:

“A public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans, no need to generate big profits, and stronger bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. That should enable it to charge lower premiums than many private plans.

“It would also provide an alternative for individuals who either can’t get adequate insurance from private insurers or don’t trust the private insurance industry to treat them fairly. And it could serve as a yardstick for comparing the performance of private plans and for testing innovative coverage schemes.

“Unfortunately, many Senate Democrats are so desperate to find a political compromise with Republicans — or so bullied by the rhetoric — that they are in danger of gravely weakening a public plan, or eliminating it entirely. That would be a mistake.”

The editorial reviews alternatives that are being offered to such a plan, including: lighter versions of a public plan, state-based plans (as opposed to a federal plan), cooperatives, and simply tighter regulation of the private insurance market.

To learn more:

• Read the New York Times editorial: A Public Health Plan.
• Read Kaiser Health News Jenny Gold’s interview with Group Health Cooperative executive Pam MacEwan about cooperative health plans, which ran earlier in LocalHealthGuide.

And so does the National Physicians Alliance

In a Seattle Times op-ed, Seattle area family physicians Jeff Huebner and Charles Mayer, writing for the National Physicians Alliance, urge the Washington state Congressional delegation to support a “strong public-health-insurance option.”

They write:

“A strong public-health-insurance option will be the key to achieving meaningful health-care reform that makes a difference for our patients, because it will force the private insurance companies to compete based on quality and be there for people if they lose their private insurance.”

To learn more:

• Read Dr. Huebner and Dr. Mayer’s op-ed piece: A Vision for Health-care Reform That is Effective and Affordable.
• Visit the National Physicians Alliance Web page.
• For a different point of view, read Washington Policy Center’s health analyst Dr. Roger Stark’s May 27 column in which he argues a public health plan will put the entire U.S. health system at risk.

But is the Senate ignoring a good alternate reform plan?

Sen. Ron Wyden

New York Times columnist David Brooks points out that Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Senator Robert Bennett have put together a bi-partisan health reform plan that would provide universal coverage and would be, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, revenue-neutral.

Brooks writes:

Now you might think that in these circumstances someone might take a second look at the ideas incorporated in the Wyden-Bennett plan, which already has a good C.B.O. score, bipartisan support and a recipe for fundamental reform.

Why is the plan being ignored by the Senate?

Brooks writes:

The committee staffs don’t like the approach because it’s not what they’ve been thinking about all these years. The left is uncomfortable with the language of choice and competition. Unions want to protect the benefits packages in their contracts. Campaign consultants are horrified at the thought of fiddling with a popular special privilege.

To learn more:

• Read David Brooks column: Something for Nothing.
• Visit Sen. Wyden’s Web page where he outlines his health-reform proposal and Sen. Bennett’s page, which includes a link to the bill.