Comprehensive Healthcare Reform: A Case Study

Considering there is no finalized legislative bill for a public option, I am not able to provide a truly accurate assessment of this issue. Hence, in this paper I evaluate a few likely scenarios. I argue in favor of adding a public option as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform. The U.S. healthcare is very complex and requires significant improvements to address key issues, such as healthcare spending. The addition of a public option can be beneficial if it is carefully constructed and coupled with other policies to ensure a more sustainable healthcare system.
A public option would likely be proposed as a “Medicare expansion” – a single nation-wide plan which includes the existing government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Compared

to starting a new and separate plan, this is approach would be easier to implement since it replaces the bureaucracy of other subsidy programs and combines all the funds into one. The public option will be available for any individuals, families, or businesses to buy in. The goal is to offer an affordable healthcare plan to all Americans in the market, particularly in areas in which private insurers have exited the market or have raised their rates. Besides increasing access to health insurance, the biggest advantage of a public option is that it can offer less-expensive coverage for three main reasons: first, administrative and billing costs would likely be lower than private insurers. [4] Second, a public plan would be less concerned with marketing and turning a profit like private plans. Third, a public insurance plan could use its bargaining power to negotiate prices more effectively with pharmaceutical companies, medical-supply manufacturers, and healthcare providers.
On the other hand, the addition of a public option is criticized by both progressives and conservatives. Progressives argue the public option does not go far enough; it does not eliminate out-of-pocket payments and instead will hinder the efforts to achieve a single-payer system in U.S. Conservatives argue against more government involvement and control over the healthcare system; they
claim that lack of a profit motive will lessen innovation and incentives to reduce wasteful costs. Moreover, the public option interferes with a free market system as the government will be both the regulator and a “player in the field.” Private insurers will not be able to compete in an unlevel playing field and eventually the United States healthcare will turn into a single-payer system. [5]