Legal Commentary

Why HCR Without A Robust Public Option Will Not Work In The US

By Big Tent Democrat

From a surprising source, Ezra Klein, riffing off of Sen. Kent Conrad:

[SEN CONRAD:] [T.R. Reid] found [that] many countries they have universal coverage. They contain costs effectively. They have high-quality outcomes, in fact higher than ours. They're not government-run systems in Germany, in Japan, in Switzerland, in France, in Belgium -- all of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high quality care and yet are not government-run systems.

Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France and Belgium have a level of government intrusion in their systems that would make the average tea partier retch. In France, for instance, the government provides all basic insurance coverage directly. In Germany, insurers aren't permitted to make a profit. In Japan, health insurance is publicly provided, and private insurance is available only to ease co-payments or cover services that the government leaves out. This stuff makes the shackled public plan look downright objectivist.

(Emphasis supplied.) PRECISELY SO, Ezra. To imagine that the United States will enact a regulatory regime remotely like those is to be delusional. The only "health care reform" that has proven effective in the United States has been the creation of public insurance options (Medicare) or government provided health care (TriCare.) To believe the US will enact and enforce a regulatory regime that would do what is done in France, Germany or Japan is to either be a liar (Conrad) or delusional (Klein.)

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 23, 2009 (boomark / email).