As most know, there's been a great deal of apparently contradictory messages from Democratic leaders on whether the public option is a non-negotiable component of health care [insurance] reform.
I say it should be a bargaining chip, and here's why.
It's simple: Do as Japan has done.
As a recent PBS Frontline piece notes, Japan
boasts the second largest economy and the best health statistics in the world. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRI scans, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital. Yet Japan spends about half as much on health care per capita as the United States.
One secret to Japan's success? By law, everyone must buy health insurance -- either through an employer or a community plan -- and, unlike in the U.S., insurers cannot turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit.
It's that last component that, I think, would serve as an acceptable substitute for a public option.
So one option is to say to our lawmakers that we are willing to forgo the public option in exchange for a government mandate that no health insurance entity may make a profit. That would include reasonable caps on executive compensation.
What say you?