I just read the report linked to in the article and like it very much. I also agree with the author that MFA is not viable at this point. However, there is one additional reform to the ACA that could grease the skids for MFA, and that is the addition of the public option, in which the governemnt offers its own insurance plan. This offers many built-in advantages over any private health care plan. First, the government is not profit motivated, and so all else equal the cost of insurance would be less. Second, the government would be able to negotiate down both drug and procedure prices. Third, anything the public option does to lower costs would cause private insurers to do the same in order to stay competitive. Fourth, if MFA is truely the best option (and I believe it is), then the natural evolution of the public option will be to gradually force out private insurance, thus getting us to MFA in a more orderly fashion.
I just read the report linked to in the article and like it very much. I also agree with the author that MFA is not viable at this point. However, there is one additional reform to the ACA that could grease the skids for MFA, and that is the addition of the public option, in which the governemnt offers its own insurance plan. This offers many built-in advantages over any private health care plan. First, the government is not profit motivated, and so all else equal the cost of insurance would be less. Second, the government would be able to negotiate down both drug and procedure prices. Third, anything the public option does to lower costs would cause private insurers to do the same in order to stay competitive. Fourth, if MFA is truely the best option (and I believe it is), then the natural evolution of the public option will be to gradually force out private insurance, thus getting us to MFA in a more orderly fashion.
Thanks for your comment. Much appreciated. I wanted to add that we do include a public option in our proposal. Thanks again for your analysis. - David