The Yin and Yang of Public and Private Coverage – In Universal Healthcare Systems
Posted by Sel Fillerup on October 26, 2007
Proponents of Universal Coverage are largely divided into two camps: Single-payer advocates and market-based Incremental Reform advocates. Each camp points vigorously at the weaknesses of the other. Neither accepts the strengths of the other.
Take note. Private health insurance covers at least 30% of the population in over a third of OECD member nations, and in many more nations covers a smaller proportion of the population. This brings us to –
CHOICE
Choice, the current buzzword for politicians and insurers, always provides a certain tension. The problem is, no one is offering the choice we really need!
This is where the tension between disparate systems finally pays off.
We NEED a Private health insurance industry. (Contrary to the opinions of single-payer advocates.) Private systems finance infrastructure more responsively than Public systems. This diminishes waiting times.
We NEED a Public health coverage program. (Contrary to the opinions of Consumer Driven incremental reform advocates.) Only Public plans assure universal enrollment with reasonable administrative cost.
Lacking from every proposal I have seen so far is a Public health coverage plan assured to everyone UNLESS they “opt-out” and choose a Private plan.
Cost reduction and universal coverage cannot be achieved without both Public and Private Coverage plans. Cost reduction cannot be accomplished without meaningful Choice!
And a Public alternative for everyone under 65 must be one of those Choices!
Next Blog: C-MCGU Part 2, Mandatory enrollment.
