policy

One of the key sticking points in the health care reform debate is whether we need to have a public option, and if so, what rules will govern it. Some argue that a public option is absolutely necessary because they have ideological view that something as important as health care should not be run solely by profit-maximizing companies.

For those who do not share that belief, I just finished a convincing piece in The New Republic that explains why not all countries need a public option but that the history of the U.S. suggests we do - a short, pragmatic argument that I find rather convincing. I like this snippet, but it does not do justice to the full (but rather short) article.

In principle, effective government regulation can curb this behavior. In practice, insurers have demonstrated an uncanny ability to circumvent regulations. Just ask the senior citizens duped by deceptive marketing of Medicare supplemental insurance over the years, or the many working-age Americans who bought private insurance on their own and filed a claim, only to have their carriers rescind coverage retroactively after deciding there was some hidden preexisting condition in their distant medical histories.

TNR has featured a lot of health care commentary and coverage - the current issue (July 1, 2009) features a number of articles about health care reform that are interesting and recommended to those following this important issue. For those who are following it very closely, check out the Treatment, a new blog specifically about health care from TNR.