Much of the discussion about health care is how to increase the number of insured and how much insurance covers.  This is well and good, but who pays for it?  Insurance does not reduce the cost of health care but increases it because the insurance has to be administered and usually has to return a profit.  How can this reduce costs?  Increasing coverage adds to health care costs instead of reducing it.  It may be good to do if it is affordable but it is an increase in total health care costs.

I see a few ways to claim to reduce costs but I don’t see how they will really work.

1.        Insurance companies can reduce how much they will pay for services.  There will be some health care providers who decline to accept the reduced pay and therefore this will reduce the availability of health care.  This is the system Medicare uses but with additional reductions in amount paid there are fewer and fewer providers who will accept Medicare.  If they are forced to accept it (involuntary servitude) many will get out of the business.  As less medical care is available the costs will decrease but at the cost of not having medical care.

2.       Employers can be forced to increase their payments for health care for their employees.  This will reduce the funds available for creating jobs and will cause many employers to close their businesses.  This means more people out of work and needing welfare.

3.       Employees can be forced to pay more for their insurance but this will be more money than is currently required for their health care.  I do not see any savings for the employees.

4.       Force the insurance companies to use their profits to pay for the increased costs.  Investors provide the capital needed to fund insurance because they expect a profit and as this decreases there will not be sufficient capital to cover the risks and the insurance companies will fail.

I fail to see how a public option will avoid these problems.  I would like to understand how the proposals expect to reduce the total cost of health care without reducing the amount available.  This is the elephant that is missing from the discussion.  We are told that there will be no elephant but as long as I see it I will not be convinced.   I would appreciate someone explaining this to me in clear language and not in government doublespeak.  God bless.

Age 82, diagnosed RA 12/2001, married since 1952, 4 sons no daughters, 4 grandsons 1 granddaughter.  Doing well on Methotrexate and Remicade.