Can Public Option Work?

[manifold]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

 

[The Rabbi]

In this case the gov't created the monopoly/oligopoly in the first place.

 

[Care4all]

That's a good question. But I think there is an even more fundamental question that must be answered before even considering it. Do we NEED a public option?

I've repeatedly asked proponents of the public option to explain why it's necessary but so far nobody has even attempted to answer the question, let alone do so convincingly.

I'm not going to support anything that grows the size of our government by more than 10% (based on estimates I've seen) unless there is a very demonstrable and convincing need to do so.

the public option was not what is costing the 'money' in this plan, the public option is just another insurance option that the customers pay for through their premiums....if your state, like mine, has ONLY 2 insurance companies that represent 90% of the people in your state who are insured, there is NOT enough insurers that can effectively compete, to bring prices down....a public option in my state could be a third choice for us to buy insurance from instead of the Duopoly that we have here and a 33% increase in insurance options, though it just goes from 2 insurers to 3.....

Capitalism RELIES on vigorous competition to keep prices down....3 options to buy insurance is probably still not enough competition in my state to bring insurance down as much as needed, but a start....I SUPPOSE?

what is costing tax payers more are the ''affordability credits'' given to people making up to 300% or 400% of poverty, which they can use to buy private insurance with...

this is suppose to cover about 25 million more people that are uninsured now....that is where the bulk of the 'money' is going in this bill...whether the public option is there or not.

It's a diversion from the real problem, not a solution.

well, the whole plan could be useless other than paying for insurance for the 25 million newbies that didn;t have insurance, that's for certain...

but the way they got the public insurance option, done within each state, it will never bring the insurance companies to their knees....not when the public insurance option has to carry and cover ALL that the Private insurance companies do on the insurance exchange.... at most, if they are efficient, they may be able to affect prices of the other 2 insurance companies in my state that they would be competing with....by maybe 5%....
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you go to ups or fedex to mail a letter? Why not?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

In addition, the current public option will subsidize anyone who makes 4x the poverty line or lower...how is that funded without using tax money?

 

[Care4all]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

In addition, the current public option will subsidize anyone who makes 4x the poverty line or lower...how is that funded without using tax money?

you just don;t get it...Pymouth

The public option, whether there is one or there is not, DOES NOT AFFECT the part of this insurance reform that PAYS for those at %400 of poverty.

Those making 400% of poverty without the public option will still GET THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS to PAY for their Insurance with possibly a MORE EXPENSIVE private plan....

THE TAX PAYER WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, with or without the public option in the plan.

AFFORDABILITY CREDITS, are completely a separate entity, in and of itself....in this insurance reform....and do not just GO AWAY because there is not a Public Insurance Option that citizens can BUY.

 

[manifold]

So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.

If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.

But I don't believe it's true. Not for a nano-second.

 

[The Rabbi]

So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.

If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.

But I don't believe it's true. Not for a nano-second.

I dont know what point she is making.
I have asked several times what the government running an insurance company will do that private enterprise running it will not do. Aside from the tiny profit margin there is no difference. The only real difference is that without a profit motive inefficiency and waste will go wild, eating up any "savings."
But the credits have to be an integral part of the "reform." Otherwise it loses the "affordability" aspect of the plan. I mean the alleged afforability because there is no affordability when gov't is involved.

 

[Care4all]

the things that could bring health care prices down, is also rigorous competition....this means we need more supply.

More hospitals, more doctors, more nurses, more medical schools, etc....(whatever it takes to get that done)

In addition to this, better regulation in the pharmaceutical area...to initiate more competition is needed.
We should be allowed to purchase drugs from overseas if they are cheaper and we should be able to negotiate bulk discounts for medicare pills, as the VA does for their veterans....we should reduce the time on the market where the branded drug is protected....not allow for an extension and only give them the first 10 years or even less, where they can charge through the roof for a life saving drug and keep generics off the market.

Even letting insurance companies cross state lines, the insurance companies still have to deal with the higher costs of health care that come from the doctors and hospitals and diagnostic tests....so the only saving seen if this legislation were to pass, is that the insurance companies could have a larger "pool of people" to prorate the costs of health care across.

the same with adding all the uninsured, this gives the insurance companies more people in their pools of people to prorate the actual costs of the health care they have to pay for....

and it gives the hospitals more people to prorate their fixed costs....the same MRI machine cost them $200 grand, whether they have 10 people a day using it for tests at $1000 bucks each, bringing in $10k a day to pay for it or 20 people a day at a $1000 each, bringing in 20k a day to help pay for it.

 

[Intense]

So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.

If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.

But I don't believe it's true. Not for a nano-second.

I dont know what point she is making.
I have asked several times what the government running an insurance company will do that private enterprise running it will not do. Aside from the tiny profit margin there is no difference. The only real difference is that without a profit motive inefficiency and waste will go wild, eating up any "savings."
But the credits have to be an integral part of the "reform." Otherwise it loses the "affordability" aspect of the plan. I mean the alleged afforability because there is no affordability when gov't is involved.

The Government will Guarantee Wage and benefit increases to all of it's employee's, further indebting Us.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

In addition, the current public option will subsidize anyone who makes 4x the poverty line or lower...how is that funded without using tax money?

you just don;t get it...Pymouth

The public option, whether there is one or there is not, DOES NOT AFFECT the part of this insurance reform that PAYS for those at %400 of poverty.

Those making 400% of poverty without the public option will still GET THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS to PAY for their Insurance with possibly a MORE EXPENSIVE private plan....

THE TAX PAYER WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, with or without the public option in the plan.

AFFORDABILITY CREDITS, are completely a separate entity, in and of itself....in this insurance reform....and do not just GO AWAY because there is not a Public Insurance Option that citizens can BUY.

According to the CBO report on the current House bill, the public option would likely have higher premiums than private insurance.

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

That being the case, why would you want a public option in the bill?

 

[Care4all]

all i want is to be able to go and buy insurance for my husband and I as individuals, or for me alone, because my husband is a Disabled vet and he can get his healthcare from the VA which is about 50 miles from here....

we can not afford $2000+ a month for the 2 of us, nor can we afford the $1000+ a month for a policy just for me.

It is ridiculous that one has to work in order to get and buy insurance that is affordable....

 

[Care4all]

So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.

If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.

But I don't believe it's true. Not for a nano-second.

I dont know what point she is making.
I have asked several times what the government running an insurance company will do that private enterprise running it will not do. Aside from the tiny profit margin there is no difference. The only real difference is that without a profit motive inefficiency and waste will go wild, eating up any "savings."
But the credits have to be an integral part of the "reform." Otherwise it loses the "affordability" aspect of the plan. I mean the alleged afforability because there is no affordability when gov't is involved.

The Government will Guarantee Wage and benefit increases to all of it's employee's, further indebting Us.

Pajesus almighty intense...WHY OH WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THESE THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE? why?

It says right in the bill that the public insurance plan CAN NOT DRAW FROM TAXES and must completely pay for itself, through the premiums charged to customers....so if there are raises for these employees, the raises will come out of THE PREMIUMS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[toomuchtime_]

all i want is to be able to go and buy insurance for my husband and I as individuals, or for me alone, because my husband is a Disabled vet and he can get his healthcare from the VA which is about 50 miles from here....

we can not afford $2000+ a month for the 2 of us, nor can we afford the $1000+ a month for a policy just for me.

It is ridiculous that one has to work in order to get and buy insurance that is affordable....

But according to the CBO, the public option will not help you to achieve this end, so again, why do you support a public option is its premiums, according to the CBO, will be higher than private insurance premiums?

 

[Care4all]

In addition, the current public option will subsidize anyone who makes 4x the poverty line or lower...how is that funded without using tax money?

you just don;t get it...Pymouth

The public option, whether there is one or there is not, DOES NOT AFFECT the part of this insurance reform that PAYS for those at %400 of poverty.

Those making 400% of poverty without the public option will still GET THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS to PAY for their Insurance with possibly a MORE EXPENSIVE private plan....

THE TAX PAYER WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, with or without the public option in the plan.

AFFORDABILITY CREDITS, are completely a separate entity, in and of itself....in this insurance reform....and do not just GO AWAY because there is not a Public Insurance Option that citizens can BUY.

According to the CBO report on the current House bill, the public option would likely have higher premiums than private insurance.

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

That being the case, why would you want a public option in the bill?

yes, it may not save money for the consumer INITIALLY.

But how about answering my MAJOR POINT correcting YOU on the 400% of poverty claim that the public insurance option is what pays for this....

As i said, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OPTION, your taxes will still go to pay for the health insurance of those making 400% of poverty.

do you accept this or still deny this PP?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I dont know what point she is making.
I have asked several times what the government running an insurance company will do that private enterprise running it will not do. Aside from the tiny profit margin there is no difference. The only real difference is that without a profit motive inefficiency and waste will go wild, eating up any "savings."
But the credits have to be an integral part of the "reform." Otherwise it loses the "affordability" aspect of the plan. I mean the alleged afforability because there is no affordability when gov't is involved.

The Government will Guarantee Wage and benefit increases to all of it's employee's, further indebting Us.

Pajesus almighty intense...WHY OH WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THESE THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE? why?

It says right in the bill that the public insurance plan CAN NOT DRAW FROM TAXES and must completely pay for itself, through the premiums charged to customers....so if there are raises for these employees, the raises will come out of THE PREMIUMS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why would you believe that would stick when the House has already passed a stand alone bill reversing cuts in reimbursements to physicians from Medicare that are required by a law passed in 1998? In fact, every year but one since 1998, Congress has refused to allow the cuts required by the law it passed in 1998 to go into effect, so what makes you think if the Dems continued to hold the House and a public option needed a taxpayer bailout, the House would not attach a rider to an appropriations bill, that cannot be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, to provide extra funds to a public option?

 

[Care4all]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

as rabbi stated our state governments created the monopolies, duopolies already, through their own state insurance laws....

Adding one additional insurance plan will just be a minor, slight, thorn in the private insurers side....no monopoly is going to be broken by it BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, it is funded by ONLY THE POLICY holders, those paying premiums.

The only saving with the public option is the 5% that the Private insurers make in profit and any efficiencies that save money that they may institute.

What the public option does do, is provide another insurance plan for people to choose from and not give ALL THE PEOPLE who HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE DUE TO THE MANDATE in this plan, to the private insurance companies on a silver platter....a gift horse to them, if they do not have to compete for these customers with better plans or prices than the next insurer....imo.

 

[toomuchtime_]

you just don;t get it...Pymouth

The public option, whether there is one or there is not, DOES NOT AFFECT the part of this insurance reform that PAYS for those at %400 of poverty.

Those making 400% of poverty without the public option will still GET THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS to PAY for their Insurance with possibly a MORE EXPENSIVE private plan....

THE TAX PAYER WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, with or without the public option in the plan.

AFFORDABILITY CREDITS, are completely a separate entity, in and of itself....in this insurance reform....and do not just GO AWAY because there is not a Public Insurance Option that citizens can BUY.

According to the CBO report on the current House bill, the public option would likely have higher premiums than private insurance.

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

That being the case, why would you want a public option in the bill?

yes, it may not save money for the consumer INITIALLY.

But how about answering my MAJOR POINT correcting YOU on the 400% of poverty claim that the public insurance option is what pays for this....

As i said, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OPTION, your taxes will still go to pay for the health insurance of those making 400% of poverty.

do you accept this or still deny this PP?

There is no reason to believe the public option contained in the current House bill will ever reduce costs to the consumer, so again, that being the case, according to the CBO, why would you want a public option?

As for your MAJOR POINT, that's a discussion you were having with some one else.

 

[The Rabbi]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

as rabbi stated our state governments created the monopolies, duopolies already, through their own state insurance laws....

Adding one additional insurance plan will just be a minor, slight, thorn in the private insurers side....no monopoly is going to be broken by it BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, it is funded by ONLY THE POLICY holders, those paying premiums.

The only saving with the public option is the 5% that the Private insurers make in profit and any efficiencies that save money that they may institute.

What the public option does do, is provide another insurance plan for people to choose from and not give ALL THE PEOPLE who HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE DUE TO THE MANDATE in this plan, to the private insurance companies on a silver platter....a gift horse to them, if they do not have to compete for these customers with better plans or prices than the next insurer....imo.

It's not directly funded. But once the gov't hands out subsidies then those subsidies will go to the public entity.
Let's look at the public entity: Why would someone sign up for that? One good reason is they couldn't get insurance any other way. For example, I have a disabled son. We cannot get insurance, no one will write it (we have it grandfathered in from before he was born btw). If someone were to write it, it would be terribly expensive. So private insurance is not able to price the risk of insuring him. That would throw us into the public pool. But the public entity still has to contend with the reality of higher risk of claims. So the insurance is inherently more expensive. It has nothing to do with greed or anything else. If the gov't then wants to give me subsidies I will spend the subsidies buying the insurance and gov't is simply subsidizing its own policies.
It makes no sense.

 

[Care4all]

According to the CBO report on the current House bill, the public option would likely have higher premiums than private insurance.



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

That being the case, why would you want a public option in the bill?

yes, it may not save money for the consumer INITIALLY.

But how about answering my MAJOR POINT correcting YOU on the 400% of poverty claim that the public insurance option is what pays for this....

As i said, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OPTION, your taxes will still go to pay for the health insurance of those making 400% of poverty.

do you accept this or still deny this PP?

There is no reason to believe the public option contained in the current House bill will ever reduce costs to the consumer, so again, that being the case, according to the CBO, why would you want a public option?

As for your MAJOR POINT, that's a discussion you were having with some one else.

yeah, i see NOW that i was responding to you toomuchtime instead of Plymouth, MY MISTAKE!

I think the congress should take seriously what the CBO is saying about this and i do appreciate the information....but they TOO should appreciate the CBO's report as well and do something to change it...change or tweak some things in their plan for this option that will not have the same results with CBO, and reduce costs....the plan hasn;t been passed and is not static....congress should be reacting to CBO's scoring and make the changes necessary to price it better, send it back to CBO to score and see how it comes out...

And for goodness sakes, if the public insurance option is not in this bill, DO NOT MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATORY! make the insurance companies compete for the extra customers, not hand them to them on a silver platter.

 

[Care4all]

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor. Why do they NEED to this time?

as rabbi stated our state governments created the monopolies, duopolies already, through their own state insurance laws....

Adding one additional insurance plan will just be a minor, slight, thorn in the private insurers side....no monopoly is going to be broken by it BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, it is funded by ONLY THE POLICY holders, those paying premiums.

The only saving with the public option is the 5% that the Private insurers make in profit and any efficiencies that save money that they may institute.

What the public option does do, is provide another insurance plan for people to choose from and not give ALL THE PEOPLE who HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE DUE TO THE MANDATE in this plan, to the private insurance companies on a silver platter....a gift horse to them, if they do not have to compete for these customers with better plans or prices than the next insurer....imo.

It's not directly funded. But once the gov't hands out subsidies then those subsidies will go to the public entity.
Let's look at the public entity: Why would someone sign up for that? One good reason is they couldn't get insurance any other way. For example, I have a disabled son. We cannot get insurance, no one will write it (we have it grandfathered in from before he was born btw). If someone were to write it, it would be terribly expensive. So private insurance is not able to price the risk of insuring him. That would throw us into the public pool. But the public entity still has to contend with the reality of higher risk of claims. So the insurance is inherently more expensive. It has nothing to do with greed or anything else. If the gov't then wants to give me subsidies I will spend the subsidies buying the insurance and gov't is simply subsidizing its own policies.
It makes no sense.

The affordability credits, will be handed out whether there is a public option or there is not one.

my understanding is that all preexisting conditions coverage will be mandatory for all insurers... and even in the CBO's scoring, shows that many people with the affordability credits will be buying PRIVATE insurance with them....so could you, with your disabled son...once preexisting condition coverage is law.