In a Knoxville News Sentinel op-ed [1] yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker says the government should pay for people's health care.
According to Sen. Corker, he only recently learned from speaking to a gentleman in East Tennessee that a lot of people don't have health insurance and end up going to emergency rooms for treatment.
Sen. Corker's solution is to provide every American "cash in hand," $2,160 for individuals or $5,400 for families, to purchase health insurance either through their employer or in the private market. He says it will be revenue neutral, but he doesn't explain how.
He also says that the alternative is "government-sponsored health care," which would "lower the quality of care, limit access to physicians and put a government bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor."
A couple of things.
If "government-sponsored health care" is such a bad thing, why he is proposing exactly that?
Second, Sen. Corker seems out of touch with regard to the cost of premiums. The average annual total premium cost in 2007 was $4,479 for single coverage and $12,106 for family coverage (source [2]).
Third, Sen. Corker is apparently unaware that insurance companies in Tennessee aren't required to write anyone an individual policy. So if you're not employed by, say, the Federal Government (like Sen. Corker), good luck. Not only that, but employers aren't required by federal law to offer insurance either. So a big check from the government isn't going to help you if you are unemployed, self-employed, underemployed, or your employer doesn't provide health insurance, especially in Tennessee.
Fourth, Sen. Corker, like many Republicans, believes we can fix anything in the tax code ("we make the tax code treat all Americans equally when it comes to buying health insurance"). Meanwhile, his colleague, senior Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, just recently called for eliminating the tax code and going to a flat tax. So how can we solve all our problems through the tax code if we don't have a tax code? Maybe Sen. Corker's people ought to get with Sen. Alexander's people and schedule lunch?
Finally (I guess that was more than a couple of things), I am not clear on how "government-sponsored health care" (which is ironically what he proposes) would "limit access to physicians" or how it would put a "government bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor."
The last time I checked, just about every physician and hospital accepts Medicare. And unlike most private insurance, which requires pre-approval by minimum-wage cubical clerks in call centers (in India?), standard Medicare requires no pre-approval. And study after study shows Medicare is more cost effective and has lower administrative overhead than private insurance. In fact, some studies say we could reduce our overall health care costs (another one of Sen. Corker's goals) by $200 billion to $300 billion per year by opening up Medicare insurance to everyone. In other words, we are already paying for "universal coverage," we're just not getting it.
Sen. Corker should study up on plans such as HR676 [3], which accomplishes everything he says he wants and a lot more for a lot less, before floating more half-baked, recycled GOP talking point "solutions." The problem from Sen. Corker's point of view, though, is that a comprehensive single-payer solution doesn't benefit the corporate insurance company middle men and gatekeepers, who are the real beneficiaries of his plan.