Wish the petition language gave us something more meaningful to fight for in the public option arena. Something like “A Public insurance option modeled on the Medicare public insurance program” (yes, we will need new cost controls for the public plan as well as for the Medicare program in national reform legislation).
Dr. Howard Dean is hosting Countdown tonight and tomorrow. Will be interesting to see how he does with the format, and what he does on health policy as part of it.
bostonshepherdsays
The public option is the ONLY option. It’s antithetical to greater competition in the marketplace, more choices for consumers, and better quality.
<
p>Why don’t you guys come out and say it? Why do you have to lie about it?
<
p>I’m not debating the politics, I’m debating the economics of large group insurance.
Hmm. Another market entrant, who will have to compete for customers like everyone else, is “antithetical” to greater competition. Curious.
garysays
When there are, say, 10 big companies that dominate the market, I submit, that the means to greater competition isn’t to create an 11th big company owned by the government.
bostonshepherdsays
David, you assume the government plan will logically price their insurance product at cost plus administrative. I doubt that will happen. What makes you think this will happen?
<
p>If government priced things correctly, we’d be charge $6.75 every time we rode the Green Line. Because that’s how much it costs.
<
p>No, David, instead, premiums will be set artificially low to make them “affordable.” This does three things:
<
p>(1) it drives customers to the public option because it’s cheaper. Private plans cannot possibly match those premiums.
(2) it increases utilization
(3) it destroys all fiscal control of the program as use blooms but revenues lag badly
<
p>As a matter of fact, this has already happened in Massachusetts. Premiums were set low (in addition to other plan attributes like deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, range of benefits, etc.) so utilization of the program was very high.
<
p>In each of the first 2 years, cost exceeded predictions by 50%.
<
p>No amount of alleged administrative cost advantage will make up for the excess utilization which overwhelms premiums, so the state will have to reach into it’s coffers to pay the difference.
<
p>This is how the public option will work.
christophersays
From what I can tell, the point of the public option is at least in part to force private insurers to provide better services at better costs or yes, go out of business. Right now it feels like the health insurance industry is run like a cartel so the government is injecting competition. As I’ve mentioned before, however, the existence of state university systems has not forced private universities out of business, so there’s no reason to assume that would happen with health care.
bostonshepherdsays
It can make the rules to advantage itself. It can set premiums well below any rational price point because it can simply dip into the Treasury to make up the difference.
<
p>Say the government sets it’s premiums at 50% its actual cost of service. It can always borrow, print, or tax the funds it needs to make up the difference. How will a private insurer compete with that?
christophersays
To me that’s the great thing about the government, but the flip side is we all ultimately benefit, but I’m for single-payer anyway and I’ve already pointed out that private university systems exist along side state systems, so I’m not that concerned.
garysays
Just not this one.
<
p>Not sure why we need yet another non-profit insurance provider in the US when we already have a pile of them. If the government is trying to make the insurance more competitive why doesn’t it just, you know, allow competition.
<
p>Break the oligopolies of companies present in the states & regions. Use the anti-trust laws in the consentrated markets then allow cross-state insurer competition.
<
p>If Massachusetts system and cost control is so damn great, then let people from other states buy in, from one of the many private and non-profit insurance companies in the state. Or, if Mass cost control isn’t better, then I should be able to shop outside the state.
<
p>But no, public option advocates conclude that we have too little cost control from the oligopolistic insurance companies. To combat it, we must create yet another big insurance company. Secretly I suspect they say, “to combat it, we must create a monopolistic insurance company”.)
marc-davidsonsays
If Massachusetts system and cost control is so damn great, then let people from other states buy in, from one of the many private and non-profit insurance companies in the state. Or, if Mass cost control isn’t better, then I should be able to shop outside the state.
Sure let’s let the insurance regulators of Alabama (or of any other state) determine if the residents of Massachusetts are getting ripped off by their insurance company.
garysays
Or, opt for the Public Option, and give the insurance regulators no voice whatsoever.
john-from-lowellsays
Back in 2005, it was a BAD idea.
<
p>
ROVNER: The nation’s insurance regulators are worried about the bill, too. Mike Kreidler is insurance commissioner of Washington state and represented the National Association of Insurance Commissioners at a hearing on the bill last month. He says insurance regulators fear the bill will prompt a, quote, “race to the bottom by insurance companies.”
p>The free marketeers are more than happy to allow folks to buy junk insurance, just like junk bonds.
<
p>FWIW, I buy a plan from Fallon, directly. I went through an insurance broker to get it because he was a friend of a friend and I figured he could get a lil’ sumpin’ sumpin’ for his troubles.
<
p>But I already had a individual quote from Fallon. He was like, “How’d ya get that? An individual quote is an exception, not the rule.” I told him I went to the Mass Health Connector and used it to compare plans and prices. After that I went direct to Fallon. They honored the quote from the Connector. So did my broker.
<
p>Later the broker admitted the Connector was pressuring insurance providers to rethink their sales strategies.
<
p>Push for a strong public option!
edgarthearmeniansays
“….that would foster greater competition in the marketplace, create more choices for consumers, and lead to lower costs and better quality for all.” I have a nice bridge for sale over the North River. Any takers?
somervilletomsays
I think that health care should join education as a basic entitlement for every American. Period.
<
p>America requires a literate and healthy electorate.
<
p>I think the government should fund it, through taxes. I think health-care providers should compete with each other on the basis of the quality of care they provide. I think there should be one set of forms, one DSM (with regionalized rates), one reimbursement process.
<
p>I think that health insurers should be dissolved. Period. They are parasites that siphon desperately-needed money in order to fund “profits” obtained with blood-money. I find it obscene that health insurance companies operate from massive sparkling skyscrapers while the poor die from preventable diseases in downtown slums and rural hollows.
<
p>Poor children with ear infections should get free care at local clinics rather than ERs. Poor children should get free dental care from local clinics rather than having infected teeth pulled at those same overcrowded ERs.
<
p>If a private health-care industry emerges, similar to the private school business, so be it. They should receive no public subsidies, their customers should receive no deductions, exemptions, or other indirect subsidies. People who want to buy private health care should do so with their own money.
<
p>When an American is sick, he or she should be able to go to a qualified, competent physician. If mechanisms are needed to prevent abuse, then create them.
<
p>I think this is where we’re going to land anyway, and I’d rather we take the enormous transition pain now.
liveandletlivesays
There are currently 81,425 signatures. I signed and forwarded to my email list.
<
p>Glad to here Obama mention this. Rumor had it that he wasn’t interested in a public option anymore.
<
p>We need that public option. It will make all the difference in getting corporate health plans to bring their costs down to what the average person can afford.
Wish the petition language gave us something more meaningful to fight for in the public option arena. Something like “A Public insurance option modeled on the Medicare public insurance program” (yes, we will need new cost controls for the public plan as well as for the Medicare program in national reform legislation).
Dr. Howard Dean is hosting Countdown tonight and tomorrow. Will be interesting to see how he does with the format, and what he does on health policy as part of it.
The public option is the ONLY option. It’s antithetical to greater competition in the marketplace, more choices for consumers, and better quality.
<
p>Why don’t you guys come out and say it? Why do you have to lie about it?
<
p>I’m not debating the politics, I’m debating the economics of large group insurance.
Hmm. Another market entrant, who will have to compete for customers like everyone else, is “antithetical” to greater competition. Curious.
When there are, say, 10 big companies that dominate the market, I submit, that the means to greater competition isn’t to create an 11th big company owned by the government.
David, you assume the government plan will logically price their insurance product at cost plus administrative. I doubt that will happen. What makes you think this will happen?
<
p>If government priced things correctly, we’d be charge $6.75 every time we rode the Green Line. Because that’s how much it costs.
<
p>No, David, instead, premiums will be set artificially low to make them “affordable.” This does three things:
<
p>(1) it drives customers to the public option because it’s cheaper. Private plans cannot possibly match those premiums.
(2) it increases utilization
(3) it destroys all fiscal control of the program as use blooms but revenues lag badly
<
p>As a matter of fact, this has already happened in Massachusetts. Premiums were set low (in addition to other plan attributes like deductibles, co-pays, pre-existing conditions, range of benefits, etc.) so utilization of the program was very high.
<
p>In each of the first 2 years, cost exceeded predictions by 50%.
<
p>No amount of alleged administrative cost advantage will make up for the excess utilization which overwhelms premiums, so the state will have to reach into it’s coffers to pay the difference.
<
p>This is how the public option will work.
From what I can tell, the point of the public option is at least in part to force private insurers to provide better services at better costs or yes, go out of business. Right now it feels like the health insurance industry is run like a cartel so the government is injecting competition. As I’ve mentioned before, however, the existence of state university systems has not forced private universities out of business, so there’s no reason to assume that would happen with health care.
It can make the rules to advantage itself. It can set premiums well below any rational price point because it can simply dip into the Treasury to make up the difference.
<
p>Say the government sets it’s premiums at 50% its actual cost of service. It can always borrow, print, or tax the funds it needs to make up the difference. How will a private insurer compete with that?
To me that’s the great thing about the government, but the flip side is we all ultimately benefit, but I’m for single-payer anyway and I’ve already pointed out that private university systems exist along side state systems, so I’m not that concerned.
Just not this one.
<
p>Not sure why we need yet another non-profit insurance provider in the US when we already have a pile of them. If the government is trying to make the insurance more competitive why doesn’t it just, you know, allow competition.
<
p>Break the oligopolies of companies present in the states & regions. Use the anti-trust laws in the consentrated markets then allow cross-state insurer competition.
<
p>If Massachusetts system and cost control is so damn great, then let people from other states buy in, from one of the many private and non-profit insurance companies in the state. Or, if Mass cost control isn’t better, then I should be able to shop outside the state.
<
p>But no, public option advocates conclude that we have too little cost control from the oligopolistic insurance companies. To combat it, we must create yet another big insurance company. Secretly I suspect they say, “to combat it, we must create a monopolistic insurance company”.)
Sure let’s let the insurance regulators of Alabama (or of any other state) determine if the residents of Massachusetts are getting ripped off by their insurance company.
Or, opt for the Public Option, and give the insurance regulators no voice whatsoever.
Back in 2005, it was a BAD idea.
<
p>
<
p>It still is.
<
p>The free marketeers are more than happy to allow folks to buy junk insurance, just like junk bonds.
<
p>FWIW, I buy a plan from Fallon, directly. I went through an insurance broker to get it because he was a friend of a friend and I figured he could get a lil’ sumpin’ sumpin’ for his troubles.
<
p>But I already had a individual quote from Fallon. He was like, “How’d ya get that? An individual quote is an exception, not the rule.” I told him I went to the Mass Health Connector and used it to compare plans and prices. After that I went direct to Fallon. They honored the quote from the Connector. So did my broker.
<
p>Later the broker admitted the Connector was pressuring insurance providers to rethink their sales strategies.
<
p>Push for a strong public option!
“….that would foster greater competition in the marketplace, create more choices for consumers, and lead to lower costs and better quality for all.” I have a nice bridge for sale over the North River. Any takers?
I think that health care should join education as a basic entitlement for every American. Period.
<
p>America requires a literate and healthy electorate.
<
p>I think the government should fund it, through taxes. I think health-care providers should compete with each other on the basis of the quality of care they provide. I think there should be one set of forms, one DSM (with regionalized rates), one reimbursement process.
<
p>I think that health insurers should be dissolved. Period. They are parasites that siphon desperately-needed money in order to fund “profits” obtained with blood-money. I find it obscene that health insurance companies operate from massive sparkling skyscrapers while the poor die from preventable diseases in downtown slums and rural hollows.
<
p>Poor children with ear infections should get free care at local clinics rather than ERs. Poor children should get free dental care from local clinics rather than having infected teeth pulled at those same overcrowded ERs.
<
p>If a private health-care industry emerges, similar to the private school business, so be it. They should receive no public subsidies, their customers should receive no deductions, exemptions, or other indirect subsidies. People who want to buy private health care should do so with their own money.
<
p>When an American is sick, he or she should be able to go to a qualified, competent physician. If mechanisms are needed to prevent abuse, then create them.
<
p>I think this is where we’re going to land anyway, and I’d rather we take the enormous transition pain now.
There are currently 81,425 signatures. I signed and forwarded to my email list.
<
p>Glad to here Obama mention this. Rumor had it that he wasn’t interested in a public option anymore.
<
p>We need that public option. It will make all the difference in getting corporate health plans to bring their costs down to what the average person can afford.