The private/public health insurance debate is not one of cost. Several countries have health care where, like the US, most health care is via private insurance and at prices comparable to the rest of the world – i.e. about 50% of what we spend.
The US has the distinction of being a country where health care is a perk of employment. Better and better health care packs are offered to employees, ignoring that past a certain point of spending on a health care pack, all you’re buying is a nicer lobby and overpriced medical equipment. The end result is that we have the prettiest hospitals and the most modern equipment, but at prices where that equipment isn’t actually worth it in terms of dollars to adding years of life.
A monolithic, centralized insurance scheme that was run by the government would over time reduce prices back down to reasonable rates. But, that’s not the only way of achieving this goal. Making insurance separate from employment would accomplish the same thing.
In principle, government insurance should be cheaper since they don’t need to earn a profit and because there’s only one organization – allowing them to cut overhead. But on the other hand, there’s nothing in particular to keep government insurance on the straight and narrow since there’s no competition. There’s no particular need for the government to try out different plans of what they do or don’t cover to see which has the greatest benefit for the least money. That’s not to say that government will be lazy, will raise prices needlessly, nor will become inefficient, merely that there’s no particular guard against it. For something like 5% greater expense for private insurance, competition keeps them at a generally acceptable level, without need for intervention. And perhaps more important, we already have the corporations there and running. The economy will run smoother for revamping what is there than in tearing it down so that it can be built anew within the government.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter terribly whether you prefer public or private. The debate between them is over ideology more than cost.
The issues that we should actually be concerned with are in decreasing spending and (ideally) spreading coverage to all. Since public vs. private is an extraneous question to those goals, it’s really better to focus on what actually matters. And in this case, it’s something that both parties are ignoring.
It’s funny how the repub message is conflicted but that is OK. They are wailing about the debt yet are pushing hard to get the Bush tax cut extended. Allowing it to expire would decrease the debt 25 to 30 percent, that is substantial. They scream about immigration but they hire the illegals. T%hey say government does not work yet the filibuster everything the dems want to do. It must be nice to be in control of what messages get out.
If you have a streak of masochism I’d recommend reading rightwing blogs or discussion groups. Their concerns regarding their team humorously mirror those of Dem party blogs, namely whether their guys are being bribed or controlled by outside influences which is why they can’t do what they really want deep down in their hearts. Or how bad their messaging is. Or how the media is liberal and against them. Or they openly wonder how “the American people” can be herded like sheep by the other side on this or that issue. Dem blogs blame religious indoctrination; Repub blogs blame schools. The thinking is so similar that if you change a couple words here and there and you may as well be reading comments at Daily Kos.
Unfortunately this knowledge never seems to do much, just like showing a religious person how another obviously wrong religion mirrors his doesn’t make that person question his own religious precepts – it just shows how crazy and wrong those other guys are, and he already knew that anyway.