We need a public option within the health care marketplace (Opinion)
By
The recent federal government shutdown, the longest in history, rested on a single issue: Democrat demand to extend COVID-era insurance subsidies, without which 22 million Americans risk losing health coverage.
How do we fix this mess? Extending or increasing subsidies to insurance companies is not the answer because costs will just continue to rise. Giving subsidy money to individuals rather than insurers will only make the situation worse because insurance relies on a pool of “healthy’ people on which risk and expenses can be spread to pay for the smaller number of people who need expensive care. If the subsidies are held by individuals, the money is not pooled to support larger payouts where needed. We need to fix the root causes and stop kicking the problem down the road. The solutions are not easy and will take some time, but we are overdue in dealing with this crisis.
The number one issue driving health care costs is private for-profit insurance companies controlling administration and reimbursement. These are some of the biggest and most profitable organizations in our economy, representing nearly 18% of GDP.
The number two issue is for-profit medical delivery. Hospitals, specialty clinics, drug manufacturers, ambulance services and other providers are largely owned by private companies, which consume an additional slice of the pie in profit and administrative burden. While there are some benefits to private enterprise in these areas, they should be regulated to prevent monopoly power and excessive profits.
The number three issue is a shortage of doctors and medical professionals. The
Solutions are available if only our representatives have the will to enact them. The first step is to pass legislation to provide a public option within the ACA marketplace. The public option would be consumer-funded Medicare until age 65, at which time the current government Medicare funding model would kick in. Over time the public option would replace most private insurance plans due to its superior service and reduced costs. Private insurance companies would migrate to providing supplemental and specialty coverage. Additional legislation needs to be enacted to reduce delivery costs. This would include incentives for non-profit hospitals and clinics, pharmaceutical pricing reforms to promote market pricing and generics and revoking the AMA’s monopoly for the training and certification of physicians.
As individuals, we need to hold our political representatives accountable and speak louder than the health care lobbyists and their political donations. We must insist on these common-sense reforms.
James O’Neill is an independent policy analyst living in
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
© 2025 the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.). Visit www.dailycamera.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


21Shares Preparing XRP Army for ETF Launch
Consumers make health decisions as Congress mulls tax credit expiration
Advisor News
- Could a narrower focus help grow your practice?
- U.S. debt hits $40 trillion: how to support concerned clients
- Flourish brings private-bank-like cash solution to MassMutual’s network
- Majority of Americans concerned recent market highs are unsustainable
- GLP-1 users choose between medication and retirement saving
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- MassMutual Expands Lending Options With New Secured Credit Line
- Corebridge Financial Introduces Progressive Trigger, a First-of-Its-Kind Index Annuity Strategy Designed to Turn Missed Years into Future Opportunity
- Insurer proposes $1.1M deal to resolve CA teachers’ annuity fee lawsuit
- IMOs get frustrated with slow carrier adoption of faster technology
- New class-action lawsuit targets Delaware Life over annuity disclosures
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News