"The independent Lewin Group analysis found that a new public plan could mean that 118 million Americans will lose their current health care coverage, and 130 million Americans could end up on a government-run health care plan," Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a Senate speech in April.Doesn't health insurance cost employers a lot of money? Wouldn't saving them that money be a good thing? And if this is a result of consumer choice, wouldn't this be a good thing also?
If the argument is that insurers would "force" consumers to get the "lesser" government health care, what is it about our Constitutional charter that requires employers to provide health insurance for employees, rather than this being a dynamic of the markeplace? And what is that keeps individuals from getting their own health insurance; or better yet, saving a boatload of money, getting only catastrophic health insurance, and taking a bigger role in their own health care?
The fear of a two tiered system --"better" private insurance for the well off, and less quality government run health care-- might be an issue. But how is the simple idea of individuals moving off of expensive, high overhead private industry paid health insurer plans, at the individuals option, to a better (if that can be achieved), less costly plan, a bad thing?
Is it just because it is government provided? Fair enough. But right now, our government is spending hundreds of billions a year on health care. (Which is why we argue that real health care reform should not cost an additional fortune more.)
As for the "independent Lewin Group," a CBO study happened to peg the figure at 11 or 12 billion, rather than the 100 plus million (now revised to 88.1 million), who would move off of employer provided care. (We think both figures are wildly speculative, but that's another matter.) And as for how "independent" the Lewin Group is, see post below.