It is no surprise how the usual suspects keep regurgitating the same old myths about implementing a public option for healthcare coverage in America.  

The first myth is, of course, that the public option will end up rationing and limiting our access to healthcare services. What are these mythmakers (business and politically conservative elements) kidding us about; our access to healthcare services under the current insurance and other managed-care options is already restricted. Unless you have the ‘Cadillac’ of insurance programs, and pay the substantial premiums that go along with it, your access to healthcare is already rationed, and closely managed.  

Who among us can just walk into a specialist these days, without first getting permission from our primary care provider (PCP)? And then, when the PCP finally looks you over and tells you how everything seems fine… ‘just take some more cough syrup and go home’…but leave your $20 co-pay on the way out first.  

And if you do get the chance to see the specialist, you are lucky if insurance covers the visit; and god-forbid if that specialist suggests further tests, higher-priced drugs or surgery. Now the care-manager assigned to your case from the insurance company begins to monitor your care, and moderate between you and your provider – reviewing your charts, history, and determining the limits of the company’s liability for covered services. Remember, these folks are motivated by maximizing profits and, thus, reducing operating costs. So you are at the mercy of the typical short-term thinking and corporate greed that goes into managing for quarterly or monthly performance.

Myth two. The Government option will drive the other commercial insurers out of business. Hardly! Big yawn! Those buyers who are well-paid and well-heeled will always opt for the more expensive plan. There may be fewer insurers in the market, with smaller ones falling by the wayside. And cost competition should bring some of the profitability margins down with the bigger ones. But, a government option will not lead to the annihilation of commercial options. Especially in the USA, there are just too many rich-folk who will always pay for the expensive alternative, whether or not the service is significantly better.

The final myth is that the delivery of healthcare services will deteriorate across the board, especially in the public-option. But, the logic does not follow. The public-option is financed by the taxpayer; and so the focus would seem to be on servicing those who are ‘capitalizing’ the venture (the taxpayers), and not lining the pockets of corporate managers or profit-hungry capitalist investors.