Letters to the Editor

9/3/09 7:00pm

Online Comment of the Week

To the Editor:A government-subsidized "public option" for health insurance would likely decrease competition ("Proposed health plan to expand coverage," Aug. 28).

Public schools demonstrate how public options decrease competition and choice. Parents prefer the tax-funded schools over non-subsidized private options because they are forced to pay taxes but not private tuitions. That is why nearly 90 percent of American children attend the public school chosen for them by government administrators.

---

---

The public option has effectively monopolized the school market by crowding out private options. Why allow a "public option" for health insurance to also decrease competition?

Anonymous

Increased health spending harmful

To the Editor:

I found it ironic that last week's opinion piece supporting the creation of a government health insurance option ("Proposed health plan to expand coverage," Aug. 28) listed Medicare's impending insolvency as one reason the public option is so necessary. The solution to not being able to pay for our current government health program is to add another, even more costly, government program? I'm not a math major, but I know that if the government can't afford to spend $632 billion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, it sure can't afford to spend $1.2 trillion a year on a public health plan.

Elizabeth Fudge

Will Rice sophomore

More physicians to lessen costs

To the Editor:

Myles Bugbee may be overly optimistic about increasing taxpayer funding of preventive care ("Proposed health plan to expand coverage," Aug. 28).

Preventive care is not a silver bullet. The authors of a 2008 New England Journal of Medicine article reviewed hundreds of cost-effectiveness studies. They found that 80 percent of preventive services examined cost more than treatment. So, unfortunately, most of the time an ounce of prevention is not even worth an ounce of cure.

The explanation is simple. Preventive care costs must apply to many people, most of whom will not suffer the illness, while treatment keeps costs low by targeting a small number of people.

Even if the government targeted cost-saving preventive services, it might not have a strong impact. As the Congressional Budget Office wrote in a recent letter, "[A] new government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for preventive services that many individuals are already receiving - which would add to federal costs but not reduce total future spending on health care."

To really reduce spending, issues left out of current reform proposals should be addressed.

State licensing laws restrict competent nurses and physician assistants from doing many tasks, which results in higher physician salaries. Limits on the number of approved medical schools means fewer new doctors, contributing to further increases in physician compensation.

Costs will go up as long as health care demand increases and the supply of those providing medical services is limited. Easing licensing restrictions and approval for new medical schools could make health care less expensive and more accessible.

David Splinter

Economics graduate student

---