OpEd:
Financing a Healthcare Public Option
August 24, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: America, Congress, Healthcare, Insurance, Israel, Politics, Spending
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
One of the concerns regarding the proposed healthcare reform, from both general critics and the ardent opposition, is the financing of an actual government-run insurance plan for millions of people - known as the "public option". One on-the-table solution is taxing those who are considered to be the elite rich of America, but this obviously does not sit well with some of the most vocal and influential constituents for Congressmen of any political party. There is, however, a better way.
The detrimental effect of not having a public option has been made clear elsewhere, but the actual projected cost of such a plan is approximately $1 trillion over the next ten years – that’s $100 billion each year for ten years. While the proposals circle around the idea of taxing a small segment of the population, in addition to having minimal co-payments by those who use the plan, the simple fact is that this large potential expenditure does not have the fiduciary stability it needs – and yet the country is in desperate need of a public option for healthcare.
The Federal Government spends a considerable amount of money each year, and the general public has only the the faintest idea of where it goes, how it is used, or even whether it is spent effectively. One such case is the yearly aid sent to Israel by American taxpayers, currently at the rate of $3 billion. The typical, and only, argument for this large sum of money is that they are American allies - yet they are not, nor have recently been, involved in any of the American armed conflicts which other allies have participated in, and they oppose the logical, and American-supported, two-state solution with Palestinians. Does America send billions in unrestricted funds yearly to England as an ally? Or perhaps to Canada, Australia, Egypt, or Japan, all of which are other allies? No. The necessary funds to make such a piece of legislation more politically attractive can therefore begun to be found in a convenient location: Israel.
This indefensible expense must obviously be put to an end, immediately, and the resultant savings can be usefully repurposed: a healthcare public option. If the costs of the public option are only 10% of the projections, entirely possible given the Congressional penchant for not understanding the number system and grossly overestimating costs, the cost is quickly reduced to $10 billion per year - a third of which can be financed by the amount formerly allocated to Israel. Suddenly the public option seems less expensive than at first glance, especially when a single reallocation of funds can have such a large effect.
Other big-ticket expenses approved by Congress could be repurposed, just like the aid to Israel, for the benefit of the country. It shouldn’t be entirely difficult, since close scrutiny of Congress’ spending habits reveals unnecessary expenses to the tune of millions, sometimes even billions, of American taxpayer dollars. If there ever was evidence of their greed and check-writing abilities, the recent public embarrassment over wanting to spend $550 million on passenger planes for themselves is it – the plan was scrapped when the story went public.
Large numbers are notoriously difficult for the American people to comprehend, but this should be neither prohibit nor excuse not creating a government healthcare option to control the skyrocketing costs of the insurance industry. If the Federal Government can spend $700 billion dollars, that they don’t have, on extremely risky bank bailout loans that may not ever be repaid in full, they should be able to find the money for the health and future of the American people.
It’s commonly known as pork barrel funding, unnecessary expenditures, and Congressional gluttony.
--- --- ---
Update (8/24/2009 2:25pm PST): It's come to my attention that I may have mislabeled this piece - it's not the "public option" that costs so much, but rather the reform package itself, with the option as a part of that.
Even though it's mistitled, this doesn't distract or change from the basic principle of relocating exorbitant and unnecessary spending to finance the healthcare reform proposal, in addition to using co-payments and premiums.
Update (9/6/2009 12:30pm PST): This piece has been plagued with number problems, all stemming from my indecision on how to represent such large numbers: full decimals, word descriptions, or abbreviated decimals? Thanks to alexanderevodicka, the 10% bit has been restated to what I originally intended - not that the projections were overshot by 10%, but rather that "if the real costs were 10% of the projections..."
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
