Don't practically all the criticisms against M4All also apply to the public option?

[TexasTowelie]

19. I don't think that the public option would necessarily be immune to some of the problems of M4A,

but the fact that there would be private insurance companies does inject an element of competition into the health care system. With M4A it would create a monopoly in healthcare and like all monopolies, costs rise while customer satisfaction decreases. While there would be some decrease in administrative costs with the reduced amount of paperwork and training, the administrative costs are at about 8% while under Medicare the administrative costs are at about 2.5% from what I recently read on DU. However, those administrative costs are still less than what are found in many private businesses.

So although there are savings to be found in administrative efficiencies, those savings could easily be exhausted by the increased prices found in a monopoly system The private insurers would try to negotiate lower costs below what M4A pays for both products and services in order to increase their profit margins.

It would also allow the providers of medical services to negotiate their reimbursement rates rather than settle for an artificially low rate that might influence whether some people enter the medical professions since they are no longer lucrative enough to pay off student debt and high tort insurance premiums. We should be trying to fix the problems in the health care system as an issue separate from how much universities and med schools charge their students in order to minimize the amount of economic disruption by trying to combine the issues. I think that Sanders and Warren would be extremely mindful of that consideration since one private college closed in Massachusetts and three private colleges have closed in Vermont within the past year.

In the private sector, consumers abhor monopolies and we have anti-trust laws to break up those monopolies and increase competition. So why would we support creating a monopoly in the public sector that affects nearly 20% of our economy? I don't see the logic in that stance and I believe that competition is a good thing for consumers. The public option promotes competition, while M4A doesn't.

And for those who are so unfortunate that they can't afford insurance through either the public option or private insurance we enhance programs such as indigent care even if they are not perfect. The level of care may not rise to the same level as those who can afford to pay premiums, but if our concern is about basic health care then we can provide those people some reassurance that they aren't being neglected. It may not be completely fair, but inequalities exist in all aspects of life. We shouldn't tear down the system that we built just because there are people who are going bankrupt due to medical crisis The bankruptcy issues can be fixed separately by changes in the bankruptcy laws or granting means-based financial aid that could include loans for the people who still have some ability to pay something or debt forgiveness for those who are no longer employable because of their medical problems. Those solutions would cause far less economic turmoil than a M4A program that affects everyone with additional taxes and eliminates competition.