Public health insurance option

The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies. It is not the same as Publicly-funded health care. Called the public insurance option or public option, for short, it was a proposed health insurance plan that could be offered by the federal government of the United States. It had been featured in two bills considered by the U.S. House of Representatives: the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), passed by the House in 2009, and its predecessor the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200). Another bill, the Public Option Act, also referred to as the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act, (H.R. 4789), would have allowed all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program.

In the first two bills the public option took the form of a Qualified Health Benefit Plan competing with similar private insurance plans in an internet based exchange or market place, enabling citizens and small businesses to purchase health insurance meeting the minimum federal standard. Persons covered by other employer plans or by state insurance plans such as Medicare would have not been eligible to obtain coverage from the exchange and therefore could not obtain this form of federal health insurance. The federal government's health insurance plan would have been financed entirely by premiums without subsidy from the Federal government.[1] The plans stated in the Senate HLP Committee and H.R. 3962, the two that contained clauses establishing a public insurance option, required the repayment of "seed money" to the Treasury over a ten year period.[2]

President Barack Obama promoted the idea of the public option while running for election.[3] After becoming President, Obama downplayed the need for a public health insurance option including calling it a "sliver" of health care reform,[4] but had not given up pursuing the idea before the health care reform was passed.[5] Congressional Democrats tended to support this idea, stating that it would drive down premiums and provide choice where few options exist. Congressional Republicans opposed the idea, stating that it would cause the private health insurance industry to collapse.[3] Since the public option in H.R. 3962 would have initially kept rates for services between Medicare and most private insurers, private insurers complained that it would result in cost-shifting to them.[3]



Supporters of a public plan, such as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, argue that many places in the United States have monopolies in which one company, or a small set of companies, control the local market for health insurance. Dionne has labeled a public option a "monopoly-buster". He has also stated those opposed to a government plan know public opinion is against them and are resisting it by trying to move discourse towards abstract and demagogic ground. He has referred to Sen. Grassley's calling government a "predator" (see Criticism below) as a "most revealing" example of this.[6]

Nobel Laureate economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has stated that local insurance monopolies exist in many of the smaller states represented by "balking" Democrats, and that those who oppose the idea of a public insurance plan on the grounds of defending private competition are in practice just defending lucrative local monopolies. He also stated that traditional ideas of beneficial market competition do not apply to the insurance industry given that insurers mainly compete by risk selection. He wrote, "The most successful companies are those that do the best job of denying coverage to those who need it most."[7] Krugman also said in 2007 that a single payer system would be the most efficient and cheapest solution and a public insurance option would get the country towards single payer as through competition it would drive the private insurers out of business.[8]

According to economist and former US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, only a "big, national, public option" can force insurance companies to cooperate, share information, and reduce costs. Scattered, localized, "insurance cooperatives" are too small to do that and are "designed to fail" by the moneyed forces opposing Democratic health care reform.[9][10]

In a public rally in Cincinnati, on September 7, 2009, President Barack Obama said: "I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs."[11]

Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents the 18th congressional district in Houston, has said, "Surveys show that nearly three out of four voters want a public health insurance plan." She also has said that "73 percent of doctors and 1,000 state legislators favor health reform legislation with a public option. The American people want a strong public option heard in Congress... because their voices have been drowned out by insurance company propaganda and disruptive tea-baggers at health reform town hall meetings."[12]

President Obama elaborated on his reasons for a public plan in his seminal September 9 address to the Joint Session of Congress:

I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business... the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better[13]

Alternative plans

An alternative that has been proposed is to pump federal money into various private non-profit health insurance cooperatives (co-ops) to get them to become large and established enough to provide cost savings[14] and into setting up transparent health insurance exchanges that would host them among health insurers.[15] These co-ops would likely be statewide.[15] Howard Dean and other Democrats have been critical of abandoning a public option in favor of co-ops, questioning whether the co-ops would have enough negotiating power to compete with private health insurers.[4] Prominent economists such as Robert Reich and 2008 Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman have also questioned co-ops ability to become large enough to reduce health care costs significantly and thus support the public option instead.[16][17]

Those desiring reform beyond the public health insurance option have argued for a single-payer system,[18] which is planned to be brought for a vote.[19] A single-payer system has been claimed by some as politically difficult,[18] and Barack Obama has come out against it, stating in a joint session of Congress, " makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."[20] Obama had expressed that he is a proponent of a single payer universal health care program during an AFL-CIO conference in 2003.[21]

Instead of creating a network of statewide public plans, Senator Olympia Snowe has proposed a "trigger" in which a plan would be put into place at some point in the future in states that do not have more than a certain number of private insurance competitors. Senator Tom Carper has proposed an "opt-in" system in which state governments choose for themselves whether or not to institute a public plan. Senator Chuck Schumer has proposed an "opt-out" system in which state governments would initially be part of the network but could choose to avoid offering a public plan.[22]


Michael F. Cannon, a senior fellow of the libertarian CATO Institute, has argued that the federal government can hide inefficiencies in its administration and draw away consumers from private insurance even if the government offers an inferior product. Cannon reported that a study by the Congressional Budget Office found that profits accounted for less than 3% of private health insurance premiums. Cannon believes that the lack of a profit motive reduces incentives to eliminate wasteful administrative costs.[23] The chief executive of Aetna, Ron Williams, has stated on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer that a public option creates a situation where "you have in essence a player in the industry who is a participant in the market, but also is a regulator and a referee in the game". He said, "we think that those two roles really don't work well."[24]

Senator Charles Grassley, an opponent of the public insurance option, was asked for his opinion of Medicare, a much more government controlled entity than the public insurance plan. Grassley stated that Medicare was "part of the social fabric of America", but he went on to say that "I think there is a lot wrong with it".[25] Later in the same exchange he said “the government is not a fair competitor. It's a predator”.[26]

Dr. Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundation has argued that a public plan in competition in private plans would likely be used as a "dumping ground" for families and individuals with higher than average health risks. This, in his view, would lead to costs that business should pay passed onto the taxpayer.[27] Republican House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has argued that a public plan would compete unfairly with private insurers and drive many of them out of business.[28]

John Murphy, an independent candidate for Congress from the 16th District of Pennsylvania in 2006 and 2008, has called the current public option plan "a de facto bailout of the healthcare insurance companies" pointing out that "Here we have a health care bill (H.R. 3962) which will not only drive up insurance costs but will not even permit the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, thereby driving up pharmaceutical costs as well! The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only 2% of Americans (6 million) will be able to participate in this plan while 33% of Americans will remain either uninsured or underinsured."[29]

Both before and after passage in the House, significant controversy surrounded the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, added to the bill to prohibit coverage of abortions – with limited exceptions – in the public option or in any of the health insurance exchange's private plans sold to customers receiving federal subsidies. In mid-November, it was reported that 40 House Democrats have said they will not support a final bill containing the Amendment's provisions.[30]

Marcia Angell, M. D., Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, has written "...older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?) Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans (2%)). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway." She lists five recommendations for modification of this bill, including "#1: Drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55."[31]

Public opinion

In 2010, Research 2000 polls for NV, IL, WA, MO, VA, IA, MN, and CO were conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and Credo Action of 600 likely general election voters in 2010, interviewed in each state by telephone, showing that in key swing states, the public option is far more popular than the Senate plan.[citation needed]

In 2010, 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown in Massachusetts support the public option.[32]

A poll from November 10 and 11 by Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 52% of Americans supported a public plan. Their research had a 3.1% margin of error.[33]

Between October 28 and November 13, 2009, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's campaign organization polled Americans to rank their support for various forms of the "public option" currently under consideration by Congress for inclusion in the final health care reform bill. The 83,954 respondents assigned rankings of 0 to 10. A full national option had the most support, with a 8.56 average, while no public option was least favored, with a 1.10 average.[34]

On October 27, journalist Ray Suarez of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer stated that "Public opinion researchers say the tide has been shifting over the last several weeks, and now is not spectacularly, but solidly in favor of a public option."[35]

A Pew Research Center report published on October 8, 2009 stated that 55% of Americans favor a government health insurance plan to compete with private plans. The results were very similar to their polling from July, which found 52% support.[36] A USA Today/Gallup survey described by a USA Today article on October 27 found that 50% of Americans supported a government plan proposal and 46% do not.[37]

In a poll in which the data were gathered on August 19, 2009 Survey USA estimated that the majority of Americans (77%) feel that it is either "Quite Important" or "Extremely Important" to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance." When asked to choose between three statements about a "public health plan administered by the federal government", a 46% plurality chose "... patients might not always have access to their choice of doctors and the government would lower costs by limiting medical treatment options and decisions that should be made instead by patients and doctors."[38]

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken on August 17–18 stated that 57% of Americans did not support the current health care bill being considered by Congress that did not include a public option.[39] A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted August 15–17, found that 47% of Americans opposed the idea of a public option and 43% expressed support.[40]

A July survey by Quinnipiac University found that 28% of Americans would like to purchase a public plan while 53% would prefer to have a private plan. It also stated that 69% would support its creation in the first place.[41]

A survey published on July 17, 2009 by Rasmussen Reports found that 50% of Americans opposed and 35% supported the creation of a government health insurance company. The survey presented the option as “the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.” [42]


A survey designed and conducted by Drs. Salomeh Keyhani and Alex Federman of Mount Sinai School of Medicine done over the summer of 2009, surveying a random sample of more than 2,000 physicians, found that most medical doctors, at 73%, support a public option.[43]

An IBD/TIPP poll of 1,376 physicians showed that 45% of doctors "would consider leaving or taking early retirement" if Congress passes the health care plan wanted by the White House and Democrats. This poll also found that 65% of physicians oppose the White House and Democratic version of health reform.[44] Statistician and polling expert Nate Silver has criticized that IBD/TIPP poll for what he calls its unusual methodology and bias and for the fact that it was incomplete when published as responses were still coming in.[45]

A survey reported by the New England Journal of Medicine in September, based on a random sample of 6,000 physicians from the American Medical Association, stated that "it seems clear that the majority of U.S. physicians support using both public and private insurance options to expand coverage."[46]

See also


  1. ^ Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan Robert Reich The Wall Street Journal
  2. ^ e.g. House Bill H.R.3962 Section 322 (b)2(B) "AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1". The Senate HLP Committee bill contains a similar clause in § 3106 "A Health Benefit Plan Start-up Fund will be created to provide loans for initial operations, which the plan will be required to pay back no later than 10 years after the payment is made."
  3. ^ a b c Wangsness, Lisa (June 21, 2009). "Health debate shifting to public vs. private". Boston Globe. Retrieved September 21, 2009. 
  4. ^ a b Kranish, Michael. "Health co-ops’ fans like cost and care: But successful models still rare nationwide". The Boston Globe. 
  5. ^ Obama, Congress easing debate on public option - Beaver County Times
  6. ^ E.J. Dionne (2009-10-01). "The Public Option Only Looks Dead". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 
  7. ^ Paul Krugman (2009-06-22). "Competition, redefined". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 
  8. ^
  9. ^ "Robert Reich Public Option Video". 
  10. ^ "How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do". 
  11. ^ "Obama: Public option should be part of reform". 2009-09-07. 
  12. ^ Mary Susan Littlepage, "House Leaders Refuse To Reconsider Kucinich's Single-Payer Amendment",, 11/04/09.
  13. ^
  14. ^ Kranish, Michael (August 19, 2009). "Health co-ops’ fans like cost and care: But successful models still rare nationwide". The Boston Globe. 
  15. ^ a b Are health care co-ops the answer for reforming the system? - Kansas City Star
  16. ^ Robert Reich's recent references to health insurance cooperatives
  17. ^ Paul Krugman Baucus and the Threshold NYT Sept. 17, 2009
  18. ^ a b "Health care activists lament single-payer snub". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 10, 2009. 
  19. ^ Waxman to Weiner: Pelosi Will Allow Single-Payer Full House Vote - Youtube
  20. ^ Remarks by the President to a joint session of Congress on health care
  21. ^ Obama on single payer health insurance - Youtube
  22. ^ Ezra Klein. "A guide to the public option compromises in the Senate". The Washington Post. 
  23. ^ Michael F. Cannon (August 6, 2009). "Fannie Med? Why a “Public Option” Is Hazardous to Your Health". CATO Institute. Retrieved October 10, 2009. 
  24. ^ "Aetna CEO: Public Insurance Option 'Wrong Way to Go'". News Hour with Jim Lehrer. August 18, 2009. 
  25. ^ Grassley praises ´Medicare as part of the "social fabric" of America but also criticizes it as a "predator"
  26. ^ Blumenthal, Paul (September 2, 2009). "Key Democrat in Health Care Talks Receives Most Health Industry Contributions in 2009". Retrieved October 5, 2009. 
  27. ^ "Government as "Competitor": The Latest Prescription for Government Control of Health Care". Heritage Foundation. August 14, 2008. 
  28. ^ Molly Hooper, "Cantor: Public option poll 'skewed'", Blog Briefing Room, 10/21/09
  29. ^ JOHN A. MURPHY "Can Lieberman Save Single Payer? (Why Progressives Should Back a Filibuster of the Health Care Bill)" CounterPunch November 9, 2009
  30. ^ Alec MacGillis, "Health-care reform and abortion coverage: Questions and answers", Washington Post, November 14, 2009.
  31. ^ Marcia Angell, M. D., "Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?" Huffington Post November 9, 2009.
  32. ^ Suzy Khimm, "Grijalva: Use Reconciliation to Pass Reform" The New Republic January 20, 2010.
  33. ^
  34. ^ Dick Durbin Public Option Poll Results GetActive Software, Inc., 16-Nov-2009
  35. ^
  36. ^ "Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform Persist". Pew Research Center. October 8, 2009. Retrieved October 9, 2009. 
  37. ^ Fritze, John (October 27, 2009). "Dems Advance opt-out 'public option'". USA Today. 
  38. ^ "News Poll #15699 "Health Care Data Gathered Using NBC News Wall Street Journal Questions" on 8/19/09". SurveyUSA. August 20, 2009. 
  39. ^ "57% oppose reforming healthcare without including the public option". Rasmussen Reports. 
  40. ^ Murray, Mark (August 18, 2009). "NBC poll: Plurality opposes public option". Retrieved August 27, 2009. 
  41. ^ "U.S. Voters Back Public Insurance 2-1, But Won't Use It". Quinnipiac University. July 1, 2009. Retrieved September 4, 2009. 
  42. ^ "50% Oppose Government Health Insurance Company". Rasmussen Reports. July 17, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2009. 
  43. ^ Shapiro, Joseph (September 14, 2009). "Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option". National Public Radio. Retrieved October 10, 2009. 
  44. ^
  45. ^ IBD/TIPP doctors poll is not trustworthy
  46. ^ Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H. "Doctors on Coverage — Physicians’ Views on a New Public Insurance Option and Medicare Expansion" NEJM • September 14th, 2009.

External links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • health insurance — insurance that compensates the insured for expenses or loss incurred for medical reasons, as through illness or hospitalization. [1900 05] * * * System for the advance financing of medical expenses through contributions or taxes paid into a… …   Universalium

  • Health insurance in the United States — The term health insurance is commonly used in the United States to describe any program that helps pay for medical expenses, whether through privately purchased insurance, social insurance or a non insurance social welfare program funded by the… …   Wikipedia

  • National health insurance — (sometimes called statutory health insurance) is health insurance that insures a national population for the costs of health care and usually is instituted as a program of healthcare reform. It is enforced by law. It may be administered by the… …   Wikipedia

  • National Health Insurance Scheme — Ghana is a country in sub Saharan Africa. It is the first country south of the Sahara to have gained independence. From 6 March 1957 when the British granted the country s independence, the country went through several stages in its political… …   Wikipedia

  • Public Option Act — Full title To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare. Citations …   Wikipedia

  • Health policy analysis — is the process of assessing and choosing among spending and resource alternatives that affect the health care system, public health system, or the health of the general public. Health policy analysis involves several steps: identifying or framing …   Wikipedia

  • Health care in Israel — is both universal and compulsory, and is administered by a small number of organizations with funding from the government. All Israeli citizens are entitled to the same Uniform Benefits Package, regardless of which organization they are a member… …   Wikipedia

  • Health care reform debate in the United States — See also: Health care reform in the United States, Health care in the United States, and Uninsured in the United States Health care in the United States Public health care Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Indian Health Service… …   Wikipedia

  • Health and Disease — ▪ 2009 Introduction Food and Drug Safety.       In 2008 the contamination of infant formula and related dairy products with melamine in China led to widespread health problems in children, including urinary problems and possible renal tube… …   Universalium

  • Health care reform in the United States — ] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP. [ NHE Fact Sheet.asp#TopOfPage National Health Expenditure Data: NHE Fact Sheet, ] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.