Dems Taking Another Shot at Public Option

[Winter_123]

I'm not sure if Olympia or Pelosi makes me dry heave more.

No other Repubicans have stepped up to become involved in the health reform effort. We shall see how that works out. One of the risks you run is that the public will side with the dems when they decide to ram the public option through because the public is convinced that the repubs can just say no and cannot step up to the plate.

As discussed, Olympia has tried to head that off and has been branded as a traitor. That's fine. Unfortunately, the public option is picking up steam again so let's hope your stonewalling approach works. It's a high risk game. Then what? Are we going to blame Olympia for a complete no-show on the part of the republican party?

The repubs need to smarten up and lead from the front and stop trying to execute their own out on the front lines.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Depending on what if anything is passed I think I will have to change my business model.

If we see a GI policy and then see premiums shoot up 30-40%. Small group under 50 will become non existent.

The only group policy to sell will be self funded ones.
I am going to have to become very sharp at setting self funded products for group under 100 lives.

It might be good to add in Tahitian Noni Juice as a product just to diversify a little.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The reality of it all is that the longer the country is in a recession/depression (depending on JoeBiden's words at a moment in time), the more likely a public option will be included, since more people will be or continue to be unemployed, and the more desperate the populace, the more dependent the populace becomes on the government.

Well the other thing that goes with the recession is that it allows Obama to keep pumping out stimulus packages. You remember my numerous soundings of the alarm about the California Syndrome blowing up right in the middle of health reform and giving people the heebie-jeebies about deficit spending? Well, basically Mr. Obama outsmarted me. He told the states that they could use their stimulus funds to balance their state budgets and now he is proposing another stimulus package. That keeps the states from blowing up in the middle of the health reform process.

"never let a crisis go to waste"

 

[ins.dave]

As discussed, it remains to be seen whether she is a traitor or involved in the mudwrestling to show that Repubs actually can come up with an alternative while the other Repubs just observe what is going on. The bill that was voted out of committee DID NOT contain a public option. The dems are working on that behind closed doors. Olympia is not going to like that, trust me. The administration setting her up as a model to follow is a double-edged sword. Stay tuned.

It's almost too much.

Public option – huge.
Mandate – huge
Interstate enrollment – huge
GI – huge
End of employer group plans - huge

I don't know if this makes sense or not but why wouldn't they implement one of these at a time if they were really interested in reform. And give the market a chance to adapt. Any one of these aspects will turn the entire industry on its ear. I don't know that it would be possible. I can see where any one of these aspects on its own would knock out private insurance.
Replacement not reform. That's what they want.
Every aspect is enormous in scope. I don't know. The more I think about it, for any one of those to be implemented you're talking universal healthcare. How else can it work? The biggest logistical nightmare EVER.
Or is this all a stall tactic where they know this is not going to happen, but they figure that by trying to complicate this as much possible they can hold out until the next federal? I know, that's ridiculous but at the rate things are getting done …?
What a mine field. Nobody wants to walk through it. Pubs are probably doing what the ins. companies are doing. Probably waiting for it all to disintegrate and trying to stay as non public as possible. I mean, its not like either can have an opinion based on anything rational can they? The public doesn't want to hear about dollars and sense do they?
Unless they publically agree with Obummer that yes ins. companies are baaaaaaad … profits are baaaaaaaaaaad and greed is baaaaaaaaaad then they get slammed. No wonder they ain't talk'n much. What can they say? Spoke to another whiney client (they all are of course) today. Man they ain't got a clue on this. They know its stupid, but they wanna hope it becomes "free" or cheap somehow.
Read a blog this am about McCain being for the interstate deal. Back on that for a sec. I mean, can you guys imagine that? Hey chumps, tell yer peeps in OH to get ready?

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"Hey chumps, tell yer peeps in OH to get ready?"

I guess I still don't understand, for example...how would it affect business in Ohio? More policies sold to out-of-staters? If so...I can't help them since I'm probably not licensed in those states.

If rates are higher in other states, Ohioans would stick to buying here.

 

[djs]

The reality of it all is that the longer the country is in a recession/depression (depending on JoeBiden's words at a moment in time), the more likely a public option will be included, since more people will be or continue to be unemployed, and the more desperate the populace, the more dependent the populace becomes on the government.

Ironically.... that is what they want you to think, but it is simply not even part of the discussion.

Here is the question.... With a family of 4, what is the premium YOU pay for the public option? Hmm, nobody knows. They have avoided telling people that there is a premium associated to the public option, similar to the premium you pay now.

The assumption everyone makes is that the premium will be significantly less, yet, I've yet to see how that works. I do agree it will save the government some money, since it is basically a HUGE tax increase (which the government puts as a savings), at least on those who have high deductible plans or no plan currently.

I'm on the fence for health reform. There is a lot that needs to happen, a lot of stuff being proposed that doesn't need to happen. I just wish Obama and congress would be more transparent about what problem it is they are trying to fix, since usually they describe a problem and then propose a solution that doesn't address it at all (such as the cost of health care, which isn't even talked about anymore).

Dan

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, there are at least 30,000 new jobs created by ACORN - the pimp and prostitution business is thriving.

Silver lining!

 

[ins.dave]

Silver lining!

Not taxable - not a benefit to all.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ironically.... that is what they want you to think, but it is simply not even part of the discussion.

Here is the question.... With a family of 4, what is the premium YOU pay for the public option? Hmm, nobody knows. They have avoided telling people that there is a premium associated to the public option, similar to the premium you pay now.
The assumption everyone makes is that the premium will be significantly less, yet, I've yet to see how that works.

Wrong answer. No way can it be lower. Where is the money gonna come from? Gi ... more expensive ...?

This is about where Aloser3timesover chimes in with something about our 6 figure income evaporating ... small change in this equation putz.

I just wish Obama and congress would be more transparent about what problem it is they are trying to fix, since usually they describe a problem and then propose a solution that doesn't address it at all (such as the cost of health care, which isn't even talked about anymore).

Seems like that's because it ain't "fix'n" they got on their mind.
Replacing and then controlling seems to be the real motive. Or just string'n everybody along long enough to get re elected?

Dan

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Hey chumps, tell yer peeps in OH to get ready?"

I guess I still don't understand, for example...how would it affect business in Ohio? More policies sold to out-of-staters? If so...I can't help them since I'm probably not licensed in those states.

If rates are higher in other states, Ohioans would stick to buying here.

I'm not seeing it that way bubba.
Maybe I'm miss'n it, but it would seem to me that the carriers would have to "level out the premiums nationally" vs. state to state. Heck, otherwise everybody would buy out of OH or whatever the least expensive state is at the time?

 

[stuy119]

Here is the question.... With a family of 4, what is the premium YOU pay for the public option? Hmm, nobody knows. They have avoided telling people that there is a premium associated to the public option, similar to the premium you pay now.

And that's the key issue. There are no premium figures, no projected enrollment numbers, nothing.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"Maybe I'm miss'n it, but it would seem to me that the carriers would have to "level out the premiums nationally" vs. state to state. Heck, otherwise everybody would buy out of OH or whatever the least expensive state is at the time?"

I assume that rates will still be based on where you live. So if someone in New Jersey wants to buy an Ohio policy, it will still be expensive because they live in NJ.

Correct? I think so.

 

[Winter_123]

I assume that rates will still be based on where you live. So if someone in New Jersey wants to buy an Ohio policy, it will still be expensive because they live in NJ.

Correct? I think so.

It could be but I am not able to conclude that yet. One of the purposes of allowing interestate sales is to increase the size of the block of business beyond a single state. The whole interstate/Obama goal is to make the country one big pool or to allow for interstate pools. And once they lift the anti-trust and start regulating interstate sales under the interstate commerce clause they will use those powers to bring uniformity to state requirements for reserves, secondary guaranteees, definition of guaranteed issue, rates, and rate increases etc. Probably we will see things go in the opposite direction where the feds will actually tell companies that if they are doing business nationwide or regionwide they cannot discriminate on rates depending on the state that the person lives in.

The interstate sale thing is being promoted to bring more flexibility and freedom to the carriers. In reality it is exactly the tool the feds want to mush everything all together. It is true that I support interstate sales but the difference is that I would give the carriers the freedoms and not the requirements that are part of someone's hidden agenda. Some of these issues can only be solved at the ballot box.

 

[ins.dave]

"Maybe I'm miss'n it, but it would seem to me that the carriers would have to "level out the premiums nationally" vs. state to state. Heck, otherwise everybody would buy out of OH or whatever the least expensive state is at the time?"

I assume that rates will still be based on where you live. So if someone in New Jersey wants to buy an Ohio policy, it will still be expensive because they live in NJ.

Correct? I think so.

Chumps, just like Winter states here, the whole concept of allowing interstate along with the proposed coverage mandate for that matter is to expand the group of insured's to as large a group as possible for each carrier allowing for more competition.
This, seems to make sense to me to a degree, conceptually, without knowing the numbers …
To your point. This would have to even up the pricing nationwide to work.
Think about it? What's the point of interstate purchasing unless it, on average lowers premium for all consumers in all states?
Again, otherwise people would just all buy their coverage from the cheapest state?
Or maybe I'm looking at it sideways … Perhaps there would be rate differences from state to state but because carriers can offer products nationwide, all carriers would be "able" to offer plans at lower rates?
I'm not saying that would work either … just pondering theoretical strategy …