Consumers Health Care Act Misses the Mark

Many supporters of nationalized, public health care continue to miss the point when it comes to affordable, accessible, and quality service for everyone. Yesterday, Senator Rockefeller’s office released the Consumers Health Care Act, claiming to “give the American people the complete coverage they need at an affordable rate”. Under this plan, Rockefeller proposes to establish a public health care option, alongside the private sector. Quality and affordability would be monitored by a non-profit Health Insurance Trust, according to an A to F grading system to be published annually.

Though this plan has good intentions, serious flaws weaken its chances of success if it survives the committee process. First, this plan requires a massive expansion of government, creating an entirely new office within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Health Plan Management. The bill requires the HPM Office to be managed by a director who is “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”. Therefore, if one party dominates the executive and legislative branches, large groups of Americans risk omission from the health care debate process. Repeatedly, large government proves to be inefficient and cumbersome, so the solution to the health care debate should not be to expand government.

Second, the Health Insurance Trust evaluates companies on subjective criteria that can deviate between individuals and ideologies. This bill is constrained by variable terms as “affordability of coverage,” “adequacy of coverage,” “consumer satisfaction,” and “any additional measures as determines by the board,” which provide little objective observation. Though proponents claim that a public option can parallel the private sector, subjective government opinion hinders the private sector’s ability to compete fairly and effectively. When determining the fate of millions of Americans, officials cannot rely on a letter grade to provide necessary health care.

Clearly, this is an issue of private goods and public choice, where special interests have the opportunity to thrive with the degree of empowerment under the Consumers Health Care Act. Few will disagree with the Senate’s findings that Americans deserve accessible, adequate health care. However, many do disagree on the way in which it is available. I argue that increased government regulation will only compound the problem, especially when freedom within the private sector is compromised.