Why couldn't states just make their own "public option"?

[code1211]

Medicare and Social Security are going broke....so the Dems answer is to start a new program and gut the old ones.

Medicare is in trouble because of the high cost of health care. Congress is on the way to fixing that now. Social Security isn't in any significant trouble at all. A small adjustment will fix it forever.

Well, I have a pretty good idea but you would call me crazy.

That would be stating the obvious.

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare. It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

 

[Joe Steel]

Medicare and Social Security are going broke....so the Dems answer is to start a new program and gut the old ones.

Medicare is in trouble because of the high cost of health care. Congress is on the way to fixing that now. Social Security isn't in any significant trouble at all. A small adjustment will fix it forever.

Well, I have a pretty good idea but you would call me crazy.

That would be stating the obvious.

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare. It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

My point was directed toward a statement implying Medicare was in trouble because of its fundamental concept, government financed health care. That's not the case. Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed. Medicare is in trouble because it's faced with high and rising medical costs and its management hasn't responded appropriately.

 

[mudwhistle]

Medicare is in trouble because of the high cost of health care. Congress is on the way to fixing that now. Social Security isn't in any significant trouble at all. A small adjustment will fix it forever.




That would be stating the obvious.

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare. It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

My point was directed toward a statement implying Medicare was in trouble because of its fundamental concept, government financed health care. That's not the case. Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed. Medicare is in trouble because it's faced with high and rising medical costs and its management hasn't responded appropriately.

That's the sticking point.

What makes you think these Puddknockers can do anything right?

 

[Joe Steel]

My point was directed toward a statement implying Medicare was in trouble because of its fundamental concept, government financed health care. That's not the case. Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed. Medicare is in trouble because it's faced with high and rising medical costs and its management hasn't responded appropriately.

That's the sticking point.

What makes you think these Puddknockers can do anything right?

They have to. Health care financing has become too big a problem to ignore. Globalization forces Americans to do compete with foreign workers. That means reduced benefits without health care, lower wages so they won't be able to buy insurance and competition with national health care arrangements in other countries. Either we do health care right or we take another step toward becoming a second world country.

 

[Big Fitz]

Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed.

You know. Part of me wishes we could force a dual system to compare. One privately run, the other government run. At the end of 15 years, the system that is the least efficient and most expensive for the SAME SERVICES AND FEATURES must be shut down. So no bail outs or contingency funding or rationing. Both do exactly the same and see who does the best.

My money is on the government system being out of money and shut down in 7 years because they don't know how to manage resources effectively.

 

[Missourian]

Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed.

You know. Part of me wishes we could force a dual system to compare. One privately run, the other government run. At the end of 15 years, the system that is the least efficient and most expensive for the SAME SERVICES AND FEATURES must be shut down. So no bail outs or contingency funding or rationing. Both do exactly the same and see who does the best.

My money is on the government system being out of money and shut down in 7 years because they don't know how to manage resources effectively.

They'd find an excuse that simultaneously rationalized their failure and put the blame squarely on the rich, corporations and capitalism (they'd use the word 'profits' but it means the same thing).

 

[toomuchtime_]

Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed.

You know. Part of me wishes we could force a dual system to compare. One privately run, the other government run. At the end of 15 years, the system that is the least efficient and most expensive for the SAME SERVICES AND FEATURES must be shut down. So no bail outs or contingency funding or rationing. Both do exactly the same and see who does the best.

My money is on the government system being out of money and shut down in 7 years because they don't know how to manage resources effectively.

You would be wrong. As a wise man once said, it's not how you play the game that counts, it's who keeps score. In the case of our existing government run health insurance plan, Medicare, while its boosters like to boast about its efficiency, citing its apparent low administrative costs, in fact many items that would be considered administrative costs for private insurance companies are not included as administrative costs for Medicare and are paid for by other departments of government. These items include,

• Tax collection to fund Medicare—this is analogous to
premium collection by private insurers, but whereas
premium collection expenses of private insurers are rightly
counted as administrative costs, tax collection expenses
incurred by employers and the Internal Revenue Service
do not appear in the official Medicare or NHE accounting
systems, and so are usually overlooked

• Medicare program marketing, outreach and education

• Medicare program customer service

• Medicare program auditing by the Office of the
Inspector General

• Medicare program contract negotiation

• Building costs of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) dedicated to the Medicare program

• Staff salaries for CMS personnel with Medicare
program responsibilities

• Congressional resources exhausted each year on setting
Medicare payment rates for services

And when we include these items as administrative costs of Medicare,

A pair of studies
of Medicare administrative costs that included unreported
expenditures on the program made by numerous government
agencies concluded that Medicare administrative expenditures
were at least three times the amount reported in the federal
budget in 2003—$15.0 billion vs. $5.2 billion.2,3

http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/pdf/admincosts.pdf

To provide added perspective to these numbers, even using the government's grossly understated administrative costs for Medicare, when per person administrative costs for Medicare and the private insurance industry are compared,

In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Putting these two findings together, that the government's "official" numbers for Medicare's administrative expenses are only about 1/3 of Medicare's real administrative expenses and that even using just this one third the government will own up to, Medicare's per person administrative expenses are higher than those of private sector health insurers, we are astonished to find that, despite the fact Medicare doesn't have to pay large executive salaries or show profits for shareholders or pay the myriad of local, state and federal taxes and fees private insurers are subject to, Medicare's per person administrative expenses are more than three times higher than those of private sector insurers.

So if, as you suggest, our goal were to achieve greater efficiency in delivering health care benefits and to provide the greatest value to our citizens for their tax dollars and insurance premiums, we would now be discussing privatizing Medicare, not talking about erecting another monument to government waste, inefficiency and dishonesty for the rest of our citizens.

 

[Meister]

Why do we even need to have a federal public option?

Why don't the states that support a public option simply join together and make a big non-profit public insurance plan open to their own citizens?

Hell, it would probably attract all kinds of new business, as businesses move into states that they don't need to provide insurance for employees in.

And as for the citizens of the other states, well, screw them. They didn't want it, so they can deal with the sky-high rates that will be the result of no public option.

Contrary to left side popular belief....MOST AMERICANS don't want any kind of public option, or UHC. These ARE people who live in individual states. just sayin...

 

[Meister]

Medicare is in trouble because of the high cost of health care. Congress is on the way to fixing that now. Social Security isn't in any significant trouble at all. A small adjustment will fix it forever.




That would be stating the obvious.

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare. It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

My point was directed toward a statement implying Medicare was in trouble because of its fundamental concept, government financed health care. That's not the case. Government-funded health care is viable when it is well-managed. Medicare is in trouble because it's faced with high and rising medical costs and its management hasn't responded appropriately.

Please show all of us where medical costs will be lowered, and while your at it, please show us where premiums will be lowered. All indications are that they will rise.

 

[Missourian]

Massachusetts health care reform

In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[45]





In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.[46]




In April 2008, a preliminary study analyzing the impact of Massachusetts approach to health financing reform, insurance mandates, on the rate of new business starts was completed.[47] The study found that new business starts were reduced in Massachusetts by 16%, and that this reduction included displacement of new firm starts across the state line into New Hampshire. In addition, the study found some evidence that this effect did not vary based on the size of the firm, but may have had a more negative effect on new businesses owned by women.


The study's author suggested that were this approach to become a model of national health finance reform, that it would have an especially profound impact on physically small states such as those in New England where jurisdictional arbitrage is potentially a practical consideration for entrepreneurs.


Massachusetts' problem of overcrowded waiting rooms and overworked primary-care physicians (who were already in short supply) has been exacerbated by the influx of patients now covered.One criticism of the program is that it has done nothing to realign incentives for MDs to provide primary care.[48].[49]

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow...where have we heard this before?

Low income hospitals in economically suppressed areas will suffer.

Small businesses will move out of the jurisdiction of healthcare regulations, into Mexico.

There will be a shortage of physicians.

The quality of healthcare will suffer.


Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Vast LWC]

So, I just got back to this thread...

What does "TennCare" have to do with a "Public Option"?

"TennCare" is a free medicaid-style universal health care program. As they say on their own site:

The TennCare program operates under a Section 1115 waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It is a demonstration program. The principle being demonstrated by TennCare is that a state can organize its Medicaid program under a managed care model and generate sufficient savings to extend coverage to additional populations who would not otherwise be Medicaid eligible, without compromising quality of care.

TennCare

A Public Option is an insurance plan purchased from the government.

Thats just apples and oranges.

 

[Vast LWC]

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare.

To make a statement like this, you would have to have read the bill, in it's entirety.

Otherwise you are talking through the openeing between your buttocks.

It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

Government health insurance options reduce costs by controlling how much they are willing to pay pharma and medical professionals for their service.

That is why Medicare costs significantly less per patient than private insurance.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

Yes, everyone in government is just evil. At least when Democrats are in charge, right?

No-one wants to make the country a better place or anything...

 

[Meister]

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare.

To make a statement like this, you would have to have read the bill, in it's entirety.

Otherwise you are talking through the openeing between your buttocks.

It addresses only the insurance side of healthcare. Like most bills in Congress the name of the bill has about as much to do with the content as the title of a led Zepplin song has to do with that content.

Government health insurance options reduce costs by controlling how much they are willing to pay pharma and medical professionals for their service.

That is why Medicare costs significantly less per patient than private insurance.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

Yes, everyone in government is just evil. At least when Democrats are in charge, right?

No-one wants to make the country a better place or anything...

Government is evil no matter who holds the power. It's a nessessary evil, unfortunately.
Your right....they really don't want to make it a better place, if they really tried they would do what's best for the people and not simply trying to expand government, or take money from lobbists. I'm talking about the top 2 major parties. There wouldn't be bribes in legislation....from both parties, if they really wanted to make this nation better.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Several states either have or have had this. Oregon has a plan similar to what is on offer by the senate. I had to use it once. I hated it passionately. It is not mandatory, however.

Hawaii had a plan, as did Tennessee. They both went under, from what I have read. California's plan is in trouble.
Many states do have plans.

It would be an interesting experiment.

Not one I would support, but it really is an option. Several states have bound together to offer lotteries, maybe they could do the same for health care.

 

[Vast LWC]

That part in red...

What are you talking about? There is nothing, NOTHING, in this bill about healthcare or the cost of healthcare.

To make a statement like this, you would have to have read the bill, in it's entirety.

Otherwise you are talking through the openeing between your buttocks.



Government health insurance options reduce costs by controlling how much they are willing to pay pharma and medical professionals for their service.

That is why Medicare costs significantly less per patient than private insurance.

The part that the Congress wants to control is the money. What do we know about the lying, decietful thieves in Washington that might makes us suspiscious of their motives when it comes to money?

Yes, everyone in government is just evil. At least when Democrats are in charge, right?

No-one wants to make the country a better place or anything...

Government is evil no matter who holds the power. It's a nessessary evil, unfortunately.
Your right....they really don't want to make it a better place, if they really tried they would do what's best for the people and not simply trying to expand government, or take money from lobbists. I'm talking about the top 2 major parties. There wouldn't be bribes in legislation....from both parties, if they really wanted to make this nation better.

Every government since the beginning of time has had it's share of bribery and corruption.

So far, a representative democracy, like the one we have today, has been the best example of a government that I have seen.

I believe that a majority of people who go into politics do so with good intentions in mind. Some people in government are corrupt, that's just the nature of the game, but I believe that this legislation in particular was entered into with the intention of helping to improve the American health care system.

I also believe that the people that are really making this bill worse are the obstructionists in both parties that are in the pockets of the insurance companies, and are (among other things) rabidly attacking the possibility of a public option.

A Public Option may not be in line with right-wing capitalism theology, and admittedly may not be the best solution to our problems in the long run, but it will DEFINITELY lower costs.

Critics of the bill want to have it both ways, they want to fight against the only portion of the bill that will in fact lower costs, and then they want to bitch and moan about costs not being lowered enough when the public option is removed.

 

[Emma]

Why do we even need to have a federal public option?

Why don't the states that support a public option simply join together and make a big non-profit public insurance plan open to their own citizens?

Hell, it would probably attract all kinds of new business, as businesses move into states that they don't need to provide insurance for employees in.

And as for the citizens of the other states, well, screw them. They didn't want it, so they can deal with the sky-high rates that will be the result of no public option.

Interesting. My state would never join in.

 

[elvis]

Why do we even need to have a federal public option?

Why don't the states that support a public option simply join together and make a big non-profit public insurance plan open to their own citizens?

Hell, it would probably attract all kinds of new business, as businesses move into states that they don't need to provide insurance for employees in.

And as for the citizens of the other states, well, screw them. They didn't want it, so they can deal with the sky-high rates that will be the result of no public option.

States are not allowed to operate in the red, like the fed can.

 

[Vast LWC]

States are not allowed to operate in the red, like the fed can.

Some states can, it all depends on their state constitutions.

 

[Meister]

States are not allowed to operate in the red, like the fed can.

Some states can, it all depends on their state constitutions.

Fiscally they can't because their bond ratings would dip, and their interest rates on loans would increase, and interest rates bonds that they sell would rise.

 

[Vast LWC]

States are not allowed to operate in the red, like the fed can.

Some states can, it all depends on their state constitutions.

Fiscally they can't because their bond ratings would dip, and their interest rates on loans would increase, and interest rates bonds that they sell would rise.

California is currently operating in the red, and they're not the only one.