Can Public Option Work?

[Care4all]

When i was under 18 all of my medical was paid for by the government, the military, so our family never had to worry about paying for it....one of the reasons my parents are wealthy today, is because the government has paid for their health care their entire lives and still is paying for near all of it....thank goodness, because now they are at the age where they really need it. (Father spent 22 years in the Military before he retired, and then another 20 years with the FAA, Miami Center, before he retired from them)

Rabb-

If hospitalization, (Catastrophic Insurance) works because you can not afford it otherwise, then why wouldn't health care coverage work, because you can not afford it otherwise?

What makes catastrophic insurance "work" and why does it "not work" for full coverage or for Doctors visits and routine visits?

What is the business model that makes it work?

 

[Care4all]

maybe it works because most people pay for it their entire lives BUT NEVER HAVE TO USE IT? Like car insurance???

 

[Skull Pilot]

When i was under 18 all of my medical was paid for by the government, the military, so our family never had to worry about paying for it....one of the reasons my parents are wealthy today, is because the government has paid for their health care their entire lives and still is paying for near all of it....thank goodness, because now they are at the age where they really need it. (Father spent 22 years in the Military before he retired, and then another 20 years with the FAA, Miami Center, before he retired from them)

Rabb-

If hospitalization, (Catastrophic Insurance) works because you can not afford it otherwise, then why wouldn't health care coverage work, because you can not afford it otherwise?

What makes catastrophic insurance "work" and why does it "not work" for full coverage or for Doctors visits and routine visits?

What is the business model that makes it work?

when Patients actually pay their doctors for things, there exists a different relationship. People become not just patients but customers and when they know what they pay for services doctors have more incentive to treat people better and to make their prices competitive.

Then you get a true doctor patient relationship and not the 10 minute office visit and a referral or prescription

Let insurance pay for the big ticket items when needed and premiums will be lower

 

[The Rabbi]

maybe it works because most people pay for it their entire lives BUT NEVER HAVE TO USE IT? Like car insurance???

SO you are getting it after all.
Catastrophic illnesses I suspect represent a small percentage of total health care spending. But even there insurance companies negotiate rates. So there is some incentive to control costs.
There is much greater incentive when people are spending their own money. So the more routine stuff is more susceptible to cost control through competition.

 

[Claudette]

My dad retired from the military after 22 years also and us kids were covered till we were 18. I don't think of the military as a public option. This is something owed all the men and women that serve this country.

Govt employees?? Well thats a whole other kettle of fish in my book. These folks have gold plated benefits and retirement all payed for by the taxpayers. They along with Congress will be exempt from the public system if it passes. I wonder why that is?? Mayby the public system will suck big time and these Govt employees are better than the average taxpayer??? If the public option is so great how come the Govt employees, Congress aren't front and center to partake of the marvels of the public system???? Anyone got an answer for that one??

 

[Navy1960]

Frankly I cannot understand how anyone can advocate borrowing vast sums of tax money knowing the track record for Govt. programs like healthcare then expect this one to be any different and suddenly bring down the costs of healthcare for everyone through coverage mandates without addressing overall costs. Someone has to pay for this eventually and if you choose to call it a tax or Value Add whatever the American people will pay for it. It will not effect service delivery, nor will effect cost in the least little bit. How do you expect cost to come down when costs are not the mitigating factor being addressed in the bill but rather coverage. Perhaps the best way to provide coverage for those that need and want it, is to make it available at such a price point that people are willing to purchase it. Here is the main falacy in this so called "public option" it assume's that by mandating coverage on everyone you mitigate costs by bringing in healthy young people too offset those with pre-existing condition that will flood the system. The problem with that is that these young people 18-29 will have to be able to purchase this healthcare at such a reduced cost to make it appealing vs. paying the penalty imposed for not having the insurance. The current penalty is 2.5% vs. 1200.00 to 1500.00 a year for low cost basic insurance. So if your a young person and are faced with paying a 300.00 dollar penalty that can be offset by deductions or paying 1500.00 a year for healthcare what do you think they will do? So your left with a system that brings in those that need it most with little of the offsets and no costs being addressed, and in the end you have accomplished nothing other than to create a new department in the Govt. to push this nation even faster into bankruptcy when healthcare reform can be addressed with the application of reform measures without massive spending.

 

[Care4all]

i think the cost of medicare....(exclude new prescription drug plan) is less expensive than what it would be for seniors having to buy private insurance at this time in their life, because medical prices are capped through regulation.

IT WAS a Gifthorse to the insurance industry by our government removing those who are sickest from the pool of people insurance companies cover.

our health insurance costs would be much, much higher if seniors were part of the Pool of people in our plans...

 

[Care4all]

My dad retired from the military after 22 years also and us kids were covered till we were 18. I don't think of the military as a public option. This is something owed all the men and women that serve this country.

Govt employees?? Well thats a whole other kettle of fish in my book. These folks have gold plated benefits and retirement all payed for by the taxpayers. They along with Congress will be exempt from the public system if it passes. I wonder why that is?? Mayby the public system will suck big time and these Govt employees are better than the average taxpayer??? If the public option is so great how come the Govt employees, Congress aren't front and center to partake of the marvels of the public system???? Anyone got an answer for that one??

no, that's not right.

those in congress are NOT exempt from the new health insurance plan....the insurance companies in their plan will be part of the reform and insurance exchange and will follow all the rules and regs required by this new insurance reform.

 

[manifold]

Can Public Option work?

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Can Public Option work?

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.

Thats a great question manifold. The administration and pelosi's people claim that the public option will lower costs due to increased competition (you know I think there is a nefarious purpose to the public option but ill leave that alone) but we could also increase competition without creating a new government beurocracy by allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.

10% is a conservative estimate IMO, it will grow to even larger within years under the current proposal's framework.

 

[manifold]

This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back. Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.

And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it. I simply do not see a need.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back. Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.

And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it. I simply do not see a need.

Hey now I adressed it sincerely.....but I'm not a supporter of it.

 

[Intense]

Can Public Option work?

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.

Thats a great question manifold. The administration and pelosi's people claim that the public option will lower costs due to increased competition (you know I think there is a nefarious purpose to the public option but ill leave that alone) but we could also increase competition without creating a new government beurocracy by allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.

10% is a conservative estimate IMO, it will grow to even larger within years under the current proposal's framework.

It will grow every year along with their wage increases, in spite of the deficit.

 

[manifold]

This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back. Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.

And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it. I simply do not see a need.

Hey now I adressed it sincerely.....but I'm not a supporter of it.

Yes you did. (I'll rep you for it shortly )

But I'm specifically looking for supporters to address the question of need. As I've said repeatedly, when it comes to expanding the power and/or influence of government (especially the federal government), my default position is always against. That is unless and until I'm convinced there is a need.

 

[Care4all]

Can Public Option work?

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.

 

[Intense]

Can Public Option work?

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.

 

[Intense]

We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?

 

[Care4all]

We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?

how does the question relate?

 

[The Rabbi]

Can Public Option work?

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.

You have identified the problem as gov't interference, namely permitting only two companies to write insurance. The solution is obviously not more gov't interference but less. Allowing people to purchase across state lines would instantly open the market to competition.

 

[Intense]

We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?

how does the question relate?

Competing while being subsidized, operating at a loss.