The government protects public employees' health benefits
Public Employees’ Health Benefits Survive Major Threats, So Far Public-sector workers continue to receive benefits that help offset their more modest salaries compared with their private-sector peers.
Health Affairs
By Robert E. Hurley, Laurie Felland, Anneliese Gerland, and Jeremy Pickreign
April 18, 2006
State and local elected officials have shown much restraint in their approach to modifying public employees’ benefits. Despite budget pressures, few public employers indicated that they felt political pressure to make deep cuts in health benefits. Many elected officials value the contributions of public workers and expressed great concern about not making major reductions in the workforce, given the responsibilities borne by state and local government agencies. Likewise, officials themselves often have a personal stake in the benefits, including health care coverage, so preservation might be a matter of self-interest.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.25.w195
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Many still express the view that they would prefer to continue to rely on their private individual or employer-sponsored health insurance plan rather than changing to a government program, because “the government” can’t do anything right.
This study confirms that “the government,” as an employer, has been very effective in maintaining traditional comprehensive coverage for its own employees. Although the government uses private insurers, it has maintained a strong stewardship over these programs. Compared to the private sector, it looks like “the government” has been doing it right.
The efficiency that would be attained by changing to a single payer system will not be discussed here other than to state that the government would have to be the steward. Based on the track record, it looks like putting “the government” in charge actually would be the right thing to do.