Don Roach

Before I begin, I want to disclose that my son has been on Medicare for the last two years as he has received services for his autism. Those services are pricey and my private insurance doesn’t cover it whereas the Medicare does.  Now, that that’s out of the way here goes nothing…

From my cursory exploration, Medicare is going to be insolvent by the year 2017. According to the 2009 Medicare brochure, “Medicare & You”:

Medicare is health insurance for people age 65 or older, under age 65 with certain disabilities, and any age with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).

So folks like my son or very old people are eligible for Medicare. It would seem that as a country we have decided that the elderly and those who have some form of disability need health insurance and that our government will pay for it. That sounds great and makes you feel a bit warm and fuzzy inside, right?

Well, if our current “public option” is going to be insolvent in a few years what’s the incentive to allow the government to create an even broader-based healthcare program? In other words, if the government is unable to handle  Medicare/Medicaid what makes us think it will be able to drive health care costs down, provide proper health insurance to the un and underinsured, and all of the other things caught up in public option proponents’ messaging?

Not much if you ask me.

To me universal healthcare should be our last resort. I agree that the government should play a role in driving healthcare costs down and doing all it can – without a public option – to provide a framework where most Americans can be insured, if not all. I don’t think we have yet exhausted all of the things the government can do in lieu of a public option. Listed below are two ideas, the second being my preferred method:

• Health care co-ops: This is getting some run in national media but no-play at the local “liberal” blog level. Essentially, members of the health plan would own it. As a mostly fiscal conservative, I love the idea, as it would put my dollars to work for me as I saw fit. Obviously, there are some drawbacks such as how to get one of these off the ground such as determining what, if any, savings co-op members would enjoy versus say Blue Cross Blue Sheild members. Still, this option represents a fundamental mind-shift – if you will – away from the public option as it puts the power back in the hands of the people and not the government.
• Massive overhaul of health insurance rate regulations: I like this idea a lot. Like I said earlier, the government is in the health insurance game today via Medicare and prices continue to soar. What they need to do is not just become another player but begin to regulate the market. I know that runs counter to my general fiscal conservatism but to me health care should be looked at like a utility. We all need it at some point in our lives so why should a utility be regulated less than health care?

Thus, I think there are at least two alternatives we should explore before going down this road. Once we have a public option there will be no turning back and while insurance companies would hate it, they’d hate it even worse if they were treated like a utility.

What do you think?