Armed with a barrage of statistics, graphs, and facts, David A. Hyman, Richard and Marie L. Corman Professor of Law and professor of medicine at the University of Illinois, as well as one of the nation’s premiere health law scholars, addressed an audience at the Levin College of Law on Sept. 23, regarding the much-hyped Healthcare Reform Bill. Hyman asked the ubiquitous question, posed on every news outlet nationwide regarding healthcare reform: what do we know, and where should we go from here? The answer, he said, is not a public health option.

Hyman cited an informal study performed via Christmas cards by Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University professor, which concluded that 83 percent of people surveyed want universal healthcare, 75 percent believe that the federal government should pay for it, 65 percent believe it should be paid for with tax revenue, but only 20 percent of those polled would be willing to pay fifty dollars more per year in taxes to finance universal healthcare.

Hyman explained that “the reason why health insurance is so expensive is because healthcare is expensive.”

He added that the markets for insurance and financing are separate and each has its own challenges and flaws. People and policymakers are forced to make “trade-offs” to balance cost, quality, and access, but the three cannot be “simultaneously optimized.”

“It turns out nobody is all that happy with their healthcare system. People vary in how unhappy they are.” Hyman surmised that somewhere between 60-80 percent of all people are unhappy with their current healthcare plan.

One of the greatest fallacies of the current healthcare system, Hyman explained, is the customary linking of healthcare coverage with employment.

“When you link employment with healthcare coverage, you cause additional problems,” he told the audience, adding that “it ties people to their place of employment, and if they lose their job, they lose their coverage.” With the unemployment rates soaring, it is no wonder that healthcare reform is on everyone’s mind.

Hyman also explained that linking healthcare coverage with employment results in consumer protection problems. Additionally, “selective and skewed” tax subsidies associated with employer-provided healthcare coverage also results in insurance being worth more to people who earn more money from their employers.

While the healthcare debate rages on, Hyman sought to draw attention to the core issue: “there is a tendency to focus on healthcare rather than health. The implicit assumption is that more money spent on healthcare will buy us better health.”

Hyman then expressed his speculation that the proposed public health option would be riddled with the same problems in finance and delivery that Medicare has, but applied to an even broader population. He said that public healthcare plans “promise big at the front end,” then “impose costs on other people at the back end.”

He acknowledged that lack of insurance often leads to individuals, particularly young adults, gamble with their health by simply not having health insurance and hoping that nothing happens to them. With the difficulty of obtaining an individual healthcare plan for less than $400 a month, it is no wonder that cash-strapped young adults are one of the most impacted groups.

According to Hyman, certain failure would result from expanding Medicare or other programs to provide a public healthcare option and the long-term viability of such a program would be non-existent.

The solutions that Hyman proposed are greater transparency—“it’s easier to find out about your car mechanic than your doctor or hospital”— as well as regulation only where necessary and by the least restrictive means available and the elimination of tax subsidies for healthcare. He also suggested “exploiting federalism” and allowing states to regulate their own healthcare policy, rather than the federal government doing so.

Hyman’s insight and research, although controversial, helps encourage ongoing, lively debate and dialogue regarding healthcare reform, as well as increases understanding of the impassioned arguments on both sides of the congressional aisle.