Health Care Reform - The Public Option

As with most political topics the subject of Health Care Reform has been picked, poked, prodded, read, re-read, interpreted, and analyzed until it is became not much more than a mucky mire of arguments, complaints and defenses. Everyone has an opinion; everyone has an interpretation of what each sentence really means. One portion of this topic has seemingly been shot down even though it continues to echo through the debates. That portion would be the Public Option.

When I first heard of this "Public Option" I was under the impression that it would basically be national Medicaid. It seemed that it would be the current medical assistance program-free of charge-which has been abused for years (in my opinion of course). It was appalling to me to think that this so called welfare program could be expanded to that extent. So I started listening more carefully to the town hall meetings, and the speeches, and hearing the other opinions floating around and I found this was not the case.

As I understand it this dead in the water Public Option would have been a lower cost insurance option for those who need insurance and simply can not afford the higher priced programs such as BCBS and Aetna for two examples. Heck even at my workplace we have a package of options to choose from. We weigh out the costs, benefits, and coverage plans. Some choose Plan A which is less expensive and has more restrictions, others choose Plan B because they have specific needs which must be met and they are not covered under the first plan.

I've heard the concerns over the Public Option driving the other carriers away due to their inability to compete with such a low cost. From my perspective this really doesn't make much sense. Large insurance corporations appearing to openly admit they would rather close their doors than play fair and benefit the American people while turning a rather large buck? Seriously? I just don't think so.

These companies have been competing between themselves for decades. Group 1 covers medical problems A, B, F, and G for so much per month while Group 2 covers problems A, C, D, and F while charging 13% more than Group 1. When they need to adjust their plans to remain competitive then Group 1 adds problem C but only under specific circumstances and Group 2 lowers their premium by 1%.

Oooh... big deal, right? To me, with my brood of kids and their varied medical problems this is not a big deal. I'll still pick the one that covers what I want, when I want it, with the doctors I approve of. If an alternate comes out that offers a better plan that whatever I'm on now, then my current plan better figure out how to keep me as their customer because as many already know the billing issues within an insurance company are the most frustrating. I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this opinion; we all take our health care seriously. Even those currently on the Medicaid programs are serious about what kind of care they get.

So why should a Public Option be such a debate even after it's been considered "dead"? Perhaps it's not dead. Perhaps there are many more like me who see the benefit to having a lower cost option for those who don't need the more specialized care and who see the possibility of our already very expensive health care being reduced by even a little. I don't hesitate to tell other vendors that if they can't meet my needs I will have to look for another source, and they usually come back willing to work something out. It's time we tell the health care companies the same thing. Oh, but wait... this issue is dead right?