Can Public Option Work?

[Varth Dader]

Annie is delusional, Varth Dader. The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care. The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.

Delusion... that sounds like a good place to find these fake numbers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.

And it is NUTS to leave the mandatory requirement in this bill, IF THERE IS NOT a public option....I say this because without a public option, and with mandatory purchase of insurance, means that the Health Insurance industry via FORCE ON THE plan purchaser, gets near every single citizen's business...via mandate...SOOOOOOOOOOO, there is NO reason to have to compete for these uninsured mandatory customers.

PRICES WILL GO UP....

IF they had to compete for these uninsured customers, then the chances are, prices would go down...they are sitting on supply...they can WRITE as many policies that they can write....the demand is sitting back and not buying because the prices are too high....if the insurance companies wanted to capture more of this demand (uninsured) out there, they would need to lower their prices...but with a MANDATE that ALL must have insurance...there is no fighting or competing with eachother to get these potential demand (customers) to come to them, and become insured....there is a mandate telling these people they HAVE TO buy this company's product....

In addition to this, without the public option, people will HAVE TO BUY it from a private business making a buck off of them....forced, forced forced to choose a private business getting a profit off of you? SOOOO TOTALLY WRONG.......

Also, making it mandatory, makes it mandatory for our government to give out these "affordability credits" because how can you get blood out of a turnip? So those qualifying, over and above the very low waged Medicaid recipients, through a means test, will also be given some "affordability credits"....this means people, via our taxes, will be FORCED to purchase a plan from these private businesses making a profit off of us with our tax dollars? That is just wrong....

WE ARE HANDING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY THE BIGGEST GIFTHORSE BY CONGRESS SINCE THE MEDICARE PILL BILL WAS HANDED TO THE PHARMA INDUSTRY!

Not paying attention, I see.
I tisn't a free lunch. Insurance companies will have to take all comers. And they wont be able to price pre-existing conditions. So the 300lb 55yr old smoker with diabetes will have to be offered the same rate as the 20-something yr old non smoking athletic female. Some bargain.
Additionally the insurers will be competing against each other, just as they do now. Notice all those ads for coverage at the top of your screen? Yeah thats them.
I will agree that rates will have to rise dramatically, mainly to cover the additional cost of expensive policies. A public option won't help that any as they will be contending with the same demographics.

 

[Care4all]

Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.

And it is NUTS to leave the mandatory requirement in this bill, IF THERE IS NOT a public option....I say this because without a public option, and with mandatory purchase of insurance, means that the Health Insurance industry via FORCE ON THE plan purchaser, gets near every single citizen's business...via mandate...SOOOOOOOOOOO, there is NO reason to have to compete for these uninsured mandatory customers.

PRICES WILL GO UP....

IF they had to compete for these uninsured customers, then the chances are, prices would go down...they are sitting on supply...they can WRITE as many policies that they can write....the demand is sitting back and not buying because the prices are too high....if the insurance companies wanted to capture more of this demand (uninsured) out there, they would need to lower their prices...but with a MANDATE that ALL must have insurance...there is no fighting or competing with eachother to get these potential demand (customers) to come to them, and become insured....there is a mandate telling these people they HAVE TO buy this company's product....

In addition to this, without the public option, people will HAVE TO BUY it from a private business making a buck off of them....forced, forced forced to choose a private business getting a profit off of you? SOOOO TOTALLY WRONG.......

Also, making it mandatory, makes it mandatory for our government to give out these "affordability credits" because how can you get blood out of a turnip? So those qualifying, over and above the very low waged Medicaid recipients, through a means test, will also be given some "affordability credits"....this means people, via our taxes, will be FORCED to purchase a plan from these private businesses making a profit off of us with our tax dollars? That is just wrong....

WE ARE HANDING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY THE BIGGEST GIFTHORSE BY CONGRESS SINCE THE MEDICARE PILL BILL WAS HANDED TO THE PHARMA INDUSTRY!

Not paying attention, I see.
I tisn't a free lunch. Insurance companies will have to take all comers. And they wont be able to price pre-existing conditions. So the 300lb 55yr old smoker with diabetes will have to be offered the same rate as the 20-something yr old non smoking athletic female. Some bargain.
Additionally the insurers will be competing against each other, just as they do now. Notice all those ads for coverage at the top of your screen? Yeah thats them.
I will agree that rates will have to rise dramatically, mainly to cover the additional cost of expensive policies. A public option won't help that any as they will be contending with the same demographics.

in most states, yes most states there is a monopoly of 1 insurer...where 70-90% of the people in the state are insured by one provider...

there IS NO COMPETITION under these conditions...you should agree...

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.

And it is NUTS to leave the mandatory requirement in this bill, IF THERE IS NOT a public option....I say this because without a public option, and with mandatory purchase of insurance, means that the Health Insurance industry via FORCE ON THE plan purchaser, gets near every single citizen's business...via mandate...SOOOOOOOOOOO, there is NO reason to have to compete for these uninsured mandatory customers.

PRICES WILL GO UP....

IF they had to compete for these uninsured customers, then the chances are, prices would go down...they are sitting on supply...they can WRITE as many policies that they can write....the demand is sitting back and not buying because the prices are too high....if the insurance companies wanted to capture more of this demand (uninsured) out there, they would need to lower their prices...but with a MANDATE that ALL must have insurance...there is no fighting or competing with eachother to get these potential demand (customers) to come to them, and become insured....there is a mandate telling these people they HAVE TO buy this company's product....

In addition to this, without the public option, people will HAVE TO BUY it from a private business making a buck off of them....forced, forced forced to choose a private business getting a profit off of you? SOOOO TOTALLY WRONG.......

Also, making it mandatory, makes it mandatory for our government to give out these "affordability credits" because how can you get blood out of a turnip? So those qualifying, over and above the very low waged Medicaid recipients, through a means test, will also be given some "affordability credits"....this means people, via our taxes, will be FORCED to purchase a plan from these private businesses making a profit off of us with our tax dollars? That is just wrong....

WE ARE HANDING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY THE BIGGEST GIFTHORSE BY CONGRESS SINCE THE MEDICARE PILL BILL WAS HANDED TO THE PHARMA INDUSTRY!

Not paying attention, I see.
I tisn't a free lunch. Insurance companies will have to take all comers. And they wont be able to price pre-existing conditions. So the 300lb 55yr old smoker with diabetes will have to be offered the same rate as the 20-something yr old non smoking athletic female. Some bargain.
Additionally the insurers will be competing against each other, just as they do now. Notice all those ads for coverage at the top of your screen? Yeah thats them.
I will agree that rates will have to rise dramatically, mainly to cover the additional cost of expensive policies. A public option won't help that any as they will be contending with the same demographics.

in most states, yes most states there is a monopoly of 1 insurer...where 70-90% of the people in the state are insured by one provider...

there IS NO COMPETITION under these conditions...you should agree...

Which states have only one insurer writing health insurance policies? I want a list and a source.
If you can actually show that, then you are right that rates will have to skyrocket to make up for all the previously uninsurables who represent a net drain. But introducing a public option won't help that.

 

[5079]

Just ask yourself a very broad question: overall, have U.S. entitlement programs stayed within their budget, or have they gone massively overbudget? Your answer will answer if a public option will work.

 

[Care4all]

Not paying attention, I see.
I tisn't a free lunch. Insurance companies will have to take all comers. And they wont be able to price pre-existing conditions. So the 300lb 55yr old smoker with diabetes will have to be offered the same rate as the 20-something yr old non smoking athletic female. Some bargain.
Additionally the insurers will be competing against each other, just as they do now. Notice all those ads for coverage at the top of your screen? Yeah thats them.
I will agree that rates will have to rise dramatically, mainly to cover the additional cost of expensive policies. A public option won't help that any as they will be contending with the same demographics.

in most states, yes most states there is a monopoly of 1 insurer...where 70-90% of the people in the state are insured by one provider...

there IS NO COMPETITION under these conditions...you should agree...

Which states have only one insurer writing health insurance policies? I want a list and a source.
If you can actually show that, then you are right that rates will have to skyrocket to make up for all the previously uninsurables who represent a net drain. But introducing a public option won't help that.

i had heard this on the 24/7
here is some info on it that i have been able to find
Health insurance is an Oxymoron! | Capital Gains and Games

Stop Playing Monopoly with Health Insurance - Break Up the BUCAs and Restore Competition in the Marketplace | Reuters



The Justice Department considers an industry to be “highly concentrated” if one company has 42 percent of the market.


looks like congress is trying to do something about it, but not in this health care bill...a separate act, which i was unaware of.... which is good.......

New Bill Would Break Up Health Insurance Monopolies
September 24, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] and Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] have thrown a new concept into the health care reform debate. They’re pushing legislation to take away insurance companies’ exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

“In the midst of the healthcare debate, where so many proposals contemplate how to bring added competition to the health insurance market, this legislation ensures that health insurers and medical malpractice insurers will at least be subject to normal laws of competition,” Sen. Leahy said upon introducing the bill last week.

Since 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act has given individual states the authority to regulate insurance companies instead of the federal government. It also stipulated that if the companies are regulated by the states, they won’t be susceptible to federal anti-trust laws that ban anti-competitive, monopolistic practices like price fixing, bid rigging and dividing up markets amongst themselves.

A 2007 study (pdf) by the American Medical Association found that some states have become almost entirely dominated by a single insurer. In Alabama, for example, Blue Cross, Blue Shield controls 83 percent of the market. In Maine, Wellpoint controls 78 percent of the market. And in some metropolitan areas, concentration of insurance by a single company is as high as 96 percent.

The legislation introduced by Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers is called the Health Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. The Senate version can be seen here, and the House version is here.

Even though breaking up these big insurance monopolies would increase competition and cause insurance premiums to go down, just like the public option would, Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] says he won’t include the Conyers-Leahy legislation in the final health care reform bill. Why? Alexander Bolton at The Hill offers this explanation:

So far the powerful insurance industry has held back waging a full-out battle against Democratic health reform proposals because companies stand to gain tens of millions of new customers. But adding language that would open health insurance companies to prosecution by the Justice Department would provoke a strong counterattack from the industry.

Permalink

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPYnOyZb78]YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans find the idea of universal healthcare by force, an abomination. They hate Obama, but moreso the Democrats in Congress that want to back his idiotic program.

This comments reminds me of Bush saying that "By Far the Vast Majority of My Tax Cuts Go to Those at the Bottom"...

Where do you get yours stats?

Annie is delusional, Varth Dader. The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care. The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.

Annie is just listening to what Obama, Obama's advisors, and Barney Frank have told her about the public option. That being it is a gateway to socialized, government run, single payer health care.

Do you need the proof? http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc]YouTube - Proof Positive the Public Option Will Lead to Single Payer[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]


I know the truth of the matter makes it more difficult to uphold your position in support of the public option but dont lie to yourself or others about the intent of those in government who are pushign for the public option...it is not what they are trying to represent it as.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This comments reminds me of Bush saying that "By Far the Vast Majority of My Tax Cuts Go to Those at the Bottom"...

Where do you get yours stats?

Annie is delusional, Varth Dader. The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care. The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.

Annie is just listening to what Obama, Obama's advisors, and Barney Frank have told her about the public option. That being it is a gateway to socialized, government run, single payer health care.

Do you need the proof? http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc]YouTube - Proof Positive the Public Option Will Lead to Single Payer[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]


I know the truth of the matter makes it more difficult to uphold your position in support of the public option but dont lie to yourself or others about the intent of those in government who are pushign for the public option...it is not what they are trying to represent it as.

Oh... Now THAT's gonna leave a mark...

But on a secondary note... I suppose of all of the ridiculous things which can be said to prove delusion... asserting that Steady Annie is such, is about as solid a foundation for Clinical Certification as such gets.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...

Come on Care... 235 billion against what liabilities? Do you have any idea?

I mean sure, there's money being made, no question; but they're on the hook for exponentially rising liabilities and I know who you're an advocate of 'FAIRNESS'; and there's nothing FAIR about looking at one's would-be profits and dismissing the liabilities which DWARF those profits...

 

[Care4all]

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)

ummmm tenncare is their MEDICAID program.... it is NOTHING like the hr3200 public option which is PAID FOR BY THE POLICY HOLDER....

what is it that you guys can not GRASP on this...why do you guys keep repeating things that don't relate to the public option in the house bill?

do you want me to link it again?

care

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)

ummmm tenncare is their MEDICAID program.... it is NOTHING like the hr3200 public option which is PAID FOR BY THE POLICY HOLDER....

what is it that you guys can not GRASP on this...why do you guys keep repeating things that don't relate to the public option in the house bill?

do you want me to link it again?

care

As long as you dont parrot the lie about it being defecit neutral I dont mind .

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)

ummmm tenncare is their MEDICAID program.... it is NOTHING like the hr3200 public option which is PAID FOR BY THE POLICY HOLDER....

what is it that you guys can not GRASP on this...why do you guys keep repeating things that don't relate to the public option in the house bill?

do you want me to link it again?

care

TennCare is a Medicaid waiver, or demonstration, program. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the use of managed-care principles can generate sufficient savings to enable the state to cover more than Medicaid eligible people.

Problem with Tenncare started when people begin dropping their insurances and signing up with state controlled insurance because of the cost saving. Now, isn't that exactly the intention of federal promoted "public option"?

Today, Tenncare has huge budget problems so TN government simply started dropping people. The same will happen sometimes in the future with federal health care... don't ya think?

 

[Care4all]

the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...

Come on Care... 235 billion against what liabilities? Do you have any idea?

I mean sure, there's money being made, no question; but they're on the hook for exponentially rising liabilities and I know who you're an advocate of 'FAIRNESS'; and there's nothing FAIR about looking at one's would-be profits and dismissing the liabilities which DWARF those profits...

those liabilities are already taken out PI, the $235 billion is the net sales....cost of goods had been taken out already....just think about it...all but 45 million out of our 300 million are insured... our total health care industry including pharma is about 2.2 trillion annually.... now let's estimate that even though seniors are only a small portion, about 30 million, 12% right now of the insured 255 million people...they could be 40% of all health care expenses with those on disability etc... medicaid costs, maybe another 5% of the insured...

so let's say 55% of that $2.2 trillion...that's roughly $1.2 trillion that goes through the hands of the insurance companies, the middle man...or there a bouts...i am certain i am missing some figures but as said, ''roughly''....and THIS is where i came up with the conclusion that the $235 billion mentioned this morning was their net sales figure....or perhaps even gross profit figure

care

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rabbi, in post 137 above, links partial proof for the position that I have been supporting, that something short of a complete public option will pass if the GOP would get on board. Snow in the Senate is now on board, and others will follow. Pelosi recognizes now that she cannot get an ouright public option. Politico suggests that the compromise "would clear the way for backers to sneak a limited public option through the Senate by attracting moderate Democrats and then to win President Barack Obama's signature."

Thanks, Rab. All can read further at Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News

 

[Ame®icano]

Just watch and listen!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09u5EhIaViM]YouTube - HEALTH CARE: FOX Looks At TennCare[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)

ummmm tenncare is their MEDICAID program.... it is NOTHING like the hr3200 public option which is PAID FOR BY THE POLICY HOLDER....

what is it that you guys can not GRASP on this...why do you guys keep repeating things that don't relate to the public option in the house bill?

do you want me to link it again?

care

TennCare is a Medicaid waiver, or demonstration, program. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the use of managed-care principles can generate sufficient savings to enable the state to cover more than Medicaid eligible people.

Problem with Tenncare started when people begin dropping their insurances and signing up with state controlled insurance because of the cost saving. Now, isn't that exactly the intention of federal promoted "public option"?

Today, Tenncare has huge budget problems so TN government simply started dropping people. The same will happen sometimes in the future with federal health care... don't ya think?

the thing with the hr3200 public option americano, is that it is on the public insurance exchange with all other private insurers in your state and no tax dollars goes towards it to sustain it or it's adminitrative costs but the POLICY HOLDERS through premiums pay for it, the ones that choose the plan....so if there is no savings, just switch plans....you or your company are not obligated to stay with any particular insurance plan....they can go right back to a private plan if the premiums go up the following season....is how i understood the plan option, when i read the actual bill....

so, it hurts no one, if they mess up and prices go higher than the other insurers, they just lose customers to the better private plans...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Rabbi, in post 137 above, links partial proof for the position that I have been supporting, that something short of a complete public option will pass if the GOP would get on board. Snow in the Senate is now on board, and others will follow. Pelosi recognizes now that she cannot get an ouright public option. Politico suggests that the compromise "would clear the way for backers to sneak a limited public option through the Senate by attracting moderate Democrats and then to win President Barack Obama's signature."

Thanks, Rab. All can read further at Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News

If the democrats truly want the republicans to jump on board they need to stop demeaning them for wanting something different than what pelosi and obama are proposing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

As I said, chief dim bulb of the board. SS and Medicare are bankrupt. PO is bankrupt. Police and firemen are local, not federal. Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??

You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.

Safe food? Thank government!

Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!

Think about it!

It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.

Necessary -vs- not necessary is strictly a matter of opinion..... I believe you are in the minority of opinions saying change in the way we 'do' health care in this country is 'unnecessary'.

That being said I stand by my thinking that the real change needs to be in the way we bill ourselves for health care.

'Insurance' was never meant for maintenance like physicals and pap smears, insurance is for when your kid gets leukemia.

We need to be able to buy insurance from private insurance for the catastrophes that we, as individuals, fear and pay our local hospital system a maintenance fee or 'tax' for routine doctoring and emergencies.

Why do we force the hospitals to contract the billing and financial data management aspect of healthcare out to private insurance companies, adding another layer of bureaucracy making a handsome profit by creating paperwork.....?

Traveling Americans is the ***** frustration, that is why the federal government must be involved - that being said, if a company the size of Boeing can 'self insure' their employees for health, I see no reason for a state as small as Rhode Island not to be able to..... if all 50 states tried to 'self insure', in 20 years our children will have 50 working models to work with.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it. If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it? For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost. Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.

I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care, there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.

in a perfect world it would work, but there are alot of people that will not buy it "deadbeats" or do not even know they have to buy it. are they going to offer classes to those people that do not understand it or will it all be controlled by some bureaucrats and who will enforce the fines?

I could be all wrong about this and everyone will jump on it but I still do not think they will get the people to pay for it. and on top of that have they actually coem up with how much the premuims will be anyway?

I mean there are alot of folks that do not pay their child support/auto insurance and parking tickets/speeding tickets and numerous other things. I am sick of the debate about it but looking at how people sometimes are it is hard for me to believe this is going to be all that they say it is going to be.

If the Public Option is set up with payments based on current age and at what age coverage was started, it will work.

If a guy decides to get 'coverage' when he is 20 and maintains that coverage until he retires, he should pay less per month than the guy who buys in for the first time at 45.

Everyone who is not boring as shit has some kind of risk in their lives..... if premiums are based only on age, your lifestyle would be your choice. A concept that is not going to sit well with the status quo...