Public Option and Related

Reader Carol responded to one of my previous writings. The following is a subsequent exchange of comments.

Carol: I appreciate your thoughts and would like to respond. As to the
Salary-Bonus Packages, I agree totally.
As to the first part, I hope you will accept my comments. I listened to
President Obama's speech to Congress this evening and read his original
health care reform package. The Public Option is available to the
uninsured (about 5% of the population). It is not available to insured
Americans. Thus, it is not a choice. For those businesses that don't
offer insurance benefits to their employees, they have the choice of
traditional insurance plans or the Public Option. If they still can't
afford to provide benefits, subsidies are available.

Art: I am not sure that what you say here is the way it was presented. I don't accuse anybody, including the the President, of lying. Businesses who do not offer health insurance to their employees have the two options you mention; offer a traditional private insurance plan or a Public Option to their employees. Note that this is a mandate without an option to not offer anything. Pres. Obama said last night that if such companies take that third option of not offering anything, they will be required by Government to pay a penalty. It is difficult to conceive of paying a penalty and simultaneously receiving a subsidy. Note that nothing is mentioned about employees still having the option of purchasing their own private insurance or a Public Option, if such would be available. The net effect of the Government Plan is this would be another mandate on business, which increases costs and makes them less competitive in the worldwide market.

Carol: You then said, "The
government healthcare insurance company would ultimately be able to
drive private insurance companies out of business. This would leave the
consumer without any option..." This is an assumption, and this is
precisely how readers are led to "believe" in things that are not there,
nor are they intended to be there.

Art: I now have private health insurance (Aetna). If I hear that Public Option Government Insurance is available at better benefits and lower personal cost, I will cancel my private insurance (I will then be uninsured and qualify for Public Option), and apply for Public Option. A large number of economically savvy citizens, who now have private insurance, will do the same. True; this is all speculation, but we all try to predict the reactions to any actions we take. With insufficient customers, private insurance companies must go out of business. This leaves Public Option (Government) as a monopoly in health insurance. Monopolies always do what is in their best interest, usually to the disadvantage of the customer.

Carol: I know nothing of the trigger option,
as it must be an "add-on" to the original plan. Without understanding
it, I could not offer any comment. President Obama didn't mention it in
his speech. He did offer an open-door policy to proposals that would
improve the Health Care Reform Plan, without detracting from the basic
policy of providing an opportunity for insurance to all American
citizens.

Art: The Trigger Option is a recent addition based on the thought that if the public is adamantly opposed to a Public Option mandate, an alternative would be to replace it with a Trigger Option. This would allow Government to judge whether private insurance companies were offering satisfactory services at the established prices. Note that the decision of whether private insurance is performing satisfactorily would be made by a governmental interpretation of "satisfaction". We might (speculation) then be right back to the original mandated Public Option (Government monopoly).

Carol: President Obama repeatedly said that government does not want
to control health insurance, nor does his reform package address that
thought. This is also an assumption.

Art: That may be true for now, but if Government Leaders are granted unlimited power, are you sure that they will not take advantage of it for their own benefit at some future date? This is a projection possibility, rather than an assumption of fact.

Carol: Having worked on the research side
of governmental operations, it has not been my experience that this type
of administration is concerned with taking over private industry. It is
concerned with regulating certain industries to prevent what we are
currently going through economically and to provide services not easily
privatized...like FEMA, Government Grants, the National Guard and the
military, Social Security, Medicare, etc..

Art: Congratulations for your research work in government. Based on your verbal context here, I'm sure it was well done. However, are you sure of what the boss already has in mind as an agenda, compared to what he is willing to reveal? Are you willing to depart from the scene, when factual developments demonstrate positions to which you are opposed? There may be a circumstance where you may be legally bound to continue your work and operate in a new context, even though you oppose it. More than likely in the initial stages, you will adapt to new circumstances in order to retain a usually cushy position.
I'm afraid in your list of services "not easily privatized", you have been a bit too generous in granting power to government. The military is intended to protect us from foreign physical aggression. The National Guard is intended to maintain legal order in the face of riots or general civilian destruction. FEMA is intended to supply human services in the face of disastrous natural events; e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. The Constitution and I grant those powers to the Federal Government. Conversely, Government operations in Grants, Social Security, and Medicare should not exist. Government should not be allowed to confiscate the assets of any individual or group for subsequent redistribution of wealth. Private industry can well afford to handle pension plans, health care (including health insurance) without any competition or interference by Government. In some cases, where there is an obvious abuse of practice from a monopolistic point of view, it is government's obligation to level the playing field by prosecution under antitrust laws and other existing fair business regulations.
For a little better perspective on where I am coming from, this is what I have had to say after listening to Pres. Obama's speech to Congress last evening:
"Pres. Obama gave a wonderful speech on health care this evening! His plan was not significantly different than what we already had heard, but it was logical and addressed the emotional needs of people toward their fellow man by use of anecdotal material.
I was much satisfied with the value of the plan, even though it is socialistic in nature and generally in contrast to what I normally believe as an advocate for pursuit of opportunity and advancement.
My main problem still exists. I have an innate distrust of government and Pres. Obama specifically. I admit that, in this life, it is necessary to place trust in other people on many of our daily operations, but I tend to shy away from granting complete trust and power to those who could do me harm without any opportunity for my self protection.
It is government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen from foreign aggressors. I cede to government my trust in that area, because I have no alternative. Conversely, I have had the ability to control my own healthcare by good judgment, physical ability, and financial means. Therefore I have no motivation to voluntarily trust government to control my health. To do so would be to forgo my God-given responsibilities and my Constitutional liberties."

Carol: Although I don't know you, I welcome discourse on the facts. Assumptions
are always debatable; I am too busy helping Bob get his company off the
ground to engage in debates, with absolutely no offense intended.