In a spirited town hall in Grand Junction, Colorado, Zach Lane, a political science and marketing major at the University of Colorado in Boulder, CO. asked President Obama the following question:
How in the world can a private organization, providing insurance, compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes… they are not subject to local regulations. How can a company compete with that?
President Obama, quick to point out that he had previously answered part of the question, jumped right and acknowledged that this situation is a possibility. The President said, “Certainly they can’t compete if the tax payer is standing behind the public option just shoveling more and more money in…right? That’s certainly not fair.” While the President said that he agreed that this would be unfair competition, he failed to mention that ultimately, the public option would be paid for by the taxpayer.
Recent statements by the President back up his current stance. On June 15, 2009, the President addressed the American Medical Association. During his address, the president said, “let me address an ILLEGITIMATE concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” The President’s “facts”, which he has not been able to back up, tend to suggest otherwise.
To put this into perspective, The President’s health care plan includes a health care exchange in which private companies, under the control of the government per provisions in the bill, would be able to offer insurance to all American citizens. However, the public option will be competing in the plan too, operating without the worries of making a profit, or having to pay taxes. As a result, the competition provided by the public option would ultimately force out the competition, leaving only the public option available and creating a single-payer system.
The President has made conflicting statements, not only regarding the public option and a single-payer system, but his stance on the issue as well. In 2003, President Obama stated “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer system”. He went on to spell out his plan to make it happen by taking control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White House. He has achieved that aspect of his agenda.
While addressing SEIU during a Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, President Obama (then Senator Obama) cemented his stance on a public option and a single-payer system by saying:
my commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President…I would hope that we set up a system that allows those who can’t go thru their employer, to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…but I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Once again, the President’s goal is on its way to becoming reality. The current health care bill being proposed by both the house and the senate, addresses universal health care for all, described as the Health Care Exchange. Both proposals also address a “federal system” for individuals who cannot get health care thru their employer, otherwise known as the Public Option. These two aspects will eventually “eliminate employer coverage” and transition into a single-payer system.
While addressing Mr. Lane at the Colorado Town Hall, the President replied:
I have already said, I would not be in favor of a public option of that sort…I think that we can craft a system in which you’ve got a public option that has to operate, independently, not subsidized by tax payers.
The president continues to say “I think we can” when referring to creating a public option that will not force out the private sector. He has yet to detail a plan that the Congressional Budget Office can validate, as to operate independent of subsidization by tax payers, which by the President’s omission, is “certainly not fair.”
