Bob Moffit and Nina Schaefer, Tribune News Service
Former Vice President Joe Biden is trying to reassure voters. Like former President Obama, he is promising that “If you like your health plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it.” Don’t bet on it.
Some presidential candidates support directly outlawing private health plans, and replacing them with a single-payer, government-run health plan. But others, like Biden, support a more indirect path to single payer — through a “public option,” a government health plan intended to compete against private health plans.
The idea of a “public option” is not new. During the 2009-2010 debate on Obamacare, congressional liberals said that they wanted to field the “public option” against private health insurance because it would “enhance competition” in the markets and keep private health plans “honest.”
The real purpose of the proposal, as several prominent Democrats publicly conceded, was to undercut private health plans by creating a government plan with special advantages, and thus crowd out and destroy private coverage altogether. Moderate Senate Democrats objected, however, and in the waning days of the 2010 debate, the Senate jettisoned the House Democrats’ “robust public option” scheme.
While a full-blown public option was averted, congressional liberals fielded two smaller sets of government-sponsored plans to compete in the individual and small group health insurance markets: The Community Oriented and Operated Plans (Co-Op Plans) and the Multi-State Health Plans, otherwise known simply as the Multistate Plans (MSPs). Competing on a level playing field, both failed.
The first set of plans, the CO-OP plans, entered the health insurance exchanges to offer coverage as non-profit health plans. To jumpstart these new federally-sponsored health plans, the Congress authorized $6 billion and established a loan program. In 2012, President Obama’s team also provided $2.4 billion in taxpayer-subsidised loans.
Nonetheless, despite these heavy infusions of taxpayer cash, the plans started to fail and the program itself virtually collapsed. By 2016, only 11 plans were active in 23 states. Of the original 24 co-op plans, today only four remain.
The second set of plans were the Multi-State Plans (MSPs), which required the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with at least two insurance carriers of offer the federally standardized coverage in health insurance exchanges. In 2014, however, OPM managed to contract with only one national insurer, the Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Association.
That year Obama administration officials projected enrollment of 750,000 persons. In 2015, enrollment climbed to only 371,000. MSP enrollment trajectory continued downward. The penetration of MSP plans — legally required to be operating in all 50 states by 2017 — was likewise abysmal. In 2018, MSP plans existed in only one state: Arkansas.
Neither the Co-Op plans nor the MSP plans did much, if anything, to enhance insurance market competition. Personal choice and market competition in the health insurance exchanges in many parts of the country virtually collapsed. In 2019, 37% of US counties had just one insurer, and 40% had just two.
Yet the “public option” proposal is making a comeback — this time as the more “robust public option” armed with powerful advantages for the government plan that will pave the way for an eventual single-payer, government-run plan. These “robust” public options are based on a command-and-control model with government price setting, provider coercion, consolidation by squeezing out private competition, and shifting financial costs on to taxpayers. Ordinary Americans, who already fear losing their private health plans, should be wary of politicians’ deceptive rhetoric about how a “public option” would “enhance” market competition, keep private plans “honest,” or make the health insurance markets — the markets they’ve already savaged through inflexible regulations — “work.”
The public-option strategy is nothing less than single payer on the installment plan, and with it the erosion private and employer-sponsored health coverage in America.
Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is a senior fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). Nina Schaefer is a senior research fellow for domestic policy studies and health policy in Heritage’s Institute for Family, Community and Opportunity.
Having tried several times to cut the food stamp programme, President Donald Trump has hit on a plan that could accomplish that, while curtailing another object of his ire: immigration. A new rule put into the Federal Register on Monday could limit the number of legal immigrants living in or entering the United States
“This is not who we are!” It’s a cry that reverberates around America with every Trump malfeasance, with his every flash of the white power symbol. It’s the plaintive chorus of decent Americans: heartfelt, genuine and utterly deluded. America has always shown the world exactly “who we are”. The only ones who
President-elect Joe Biden could largely avoid the quagmire of political turmoil he’s about to inherit by following a thoughtful course of action. Here’s a three-step plan that could pacify the entrenched partisan divides:
The US Fed Reserve has raised the interest rate by 25 percentage points, from 4.5 per cent to 4.75 per cent, which is modest in comparison to the series of rate hikes in 2022. Fed Reserve chairman Jeremy Powell said that the interest rate hike would continue but in small doses until the inflation rate returns to the mandated 2 per cent.
Why is Britain the worst-performing major economy in the world? Leaving aside the possibility — never far away from the fecund minds of the Brexiteers — that the UK is a victim of a global conspiracy against the UK led by a cabal of resentful globalists, Europhiles and Eurocrats, the answer is indeed Brexit.
The Biden administration announced last week that the US will provide 31 Abrams M-1 tanks to Ukraine, and Germany said it will send 14 of its Leopard tanks to Kyiv. The tank deal and the first anniversary of the start of the war in February offer an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness and future direction of US military aid to
From insider deals to real estate flips, the problems with charter schools run by for-profit corporations can’t be ignored. And growth in this sector is accelerating as operators use lax regulations and complicated corporate schemes to harvest public dollars from publicly-funded charter schools. Those are the findings of a new