- Thread starter
- #11
- 10,275
Actually...I like the "trigger" option. Assuming the trigger has about a 5-year delay...enough time for the health insurers to get their act together.
Say Hello To The Public Option
- Thread starter CHUMPS FROM OXFORD
- Start date
- 2,908
The problem with the trigger is that the carriers are being programmed to fail by the government. A trigger tells them basically that if they dont get the cost of health insurance down then the government is going to continue to takeover the industry. Since the carriers dont control the whole supply chain and the bills being considered do nothing about cost containment.then they cannot win.
The government already runs two of the largest public health options on earth: Medicare and Medicaid. So why don't we work it the other way around. Why dont we bring cost control to those programs and after we have done such a crackerjack job make an argument that it should be extended to other segments of the health insurance/reimubursement arena.
I say, kill the public option by at least getting it into a trigger mode and then keep it inactive by recognizing that it is "not the right time to fully fund" it, blah, blah, blah. If we can't contain it there then I am in favor of bypassing the public option completely and adopting the Canadian system. You can't cross a river with one leg in a canoe and another in a rowboat. Do something well even if it is Plan C. Otherwise the whole system and economy are going to go belly-up, faster. The longer we play with public options and co-ops and all of that the longer we are just in frig and diddle mode. Kill it or substantially contain it or the private sector role is just an illusion. You can't compete with a team that owns the umpires. You just can't. United Health and a couple others can because they will be one of the select few that will cut socialist monopolies in the background. It is bedtime for bonzo for the rest if it is not contained.
This thing can be easily beaten though for at least another couple years if people would smarten up so dont run for the lifeboats just yet. And after two years the national budget will walk and talk like California so possibilities and problems get viewed more realistically then rather than all this "yes we can" crap that is still lingering around. Not saying the public option or single payer wont happen. I am just saying you have to live to fight for another day.
Last edited:
- 185
To opt in or out is an interesting dynamic. Think about the population and business migrations that would occur. I'm not sure if to opt in would benefit a state or not. Hmm ... opinoins and reasons anyone???
- Thread starter
- #14
- 10,275
I assume not many states would "opt out."
So this option is just a gimmick to get more people on board.
So this option is just a gimmick to get more people on board.
- 2,908
They are just trying to sugar coat the bill to move it along. They always change the law or use carrots and sticks as needed down the road. There will be lots and lots of incentives for states to cover certain folks and participate in certain fed programs. Maybe even block grants from the states. Oh, your state isnt a public option state? Sorry about that. Might want to look into it.
- 3,863
Usually they play with Highway Funds. Ohhh your state doesn't want .08 limit BAC then no Highway Funds. Same thing with this - don't believe anything you read that would state "optional" there is no such thing when it comes down on a Federal level.
They (feds) played around with highway funds (during Nixon?) when states refused to go along with the 55MPH limit.
Lot's of dirty pool going on in Obamington. More than usual I suspect. Giving federal fund, taking them away. As if is is their money to give . . .
Will be interesting to see what happens here in GA. The Gov. decided no more ARRA signs on road projects. Seems each sign costs the state about $1500 and Sonny decided that putting that $600k to use in actual JOBS was better than erecting temporary signs to Obamaman and his Spendulus money.
Lot's of dirty pool going on in Obamington. More than usual I suspect. Giving federal fund, taking them away. As if is is their money to give . . .
Will be interesting to see what happens here in GA. The Gov. decided no more ARRA signs on road projects. Seems each sign costs the state about $1500 and Sonny decided that putting that $600k to use in actual JOBS was better than erecting temporary signs to Obamaman and his Spendulus money.
- 8,448
It looks like the government (HHS) is attempting to do what Senator Obama described in 2002. In an interview, he said that "single-payor" is the way to go. But he cautioned that it would take years to condition the public, therefore a back-door method would be the best strategy.
First we see a Public Option (PCIP) plan introduced in July of this year for high-risk individuals.
Now, HHS is working to expand this plan for 2011 by reducing premiums 20%, adding more deductibles and creating a "child-only" policy to assume this market from private insurers.
Brief WSJ Story: U.S. to Cut Insurance Premiums in - WSJ.com
The next step in the "takeover" of private insurance may likely be relaxing of the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) eligibility requirements. Once this plan is full of "sick" people, it's only logical that a new catagory will be introduced to accept healthy people, whose premiums will offset the cost of insuring the high-risk folks. Viola!, you then have a true Public Option that will destroy the private insurance industry, if the premiums are low enough.
Unless the new Republican/TeaParty House Majority cause ObamaCare to unravel, this scenario isn't as far fetched as it seemed 12 months ago, IMO.
-Allen
First we see a Public Option (PCIP) plan introduced in July of this year for high-risk individuals.
Now, HHS is working to expand this plan for 2011 by reducing premiums 20%, adding more deductibles and creating a "child-only" policy to assume this market from private insurers.
Brief WSJ Story: U.S. to Cut Insurance Premiums in - WSJ.com
The next step in the "takeover" of private insurance may likely be relaxing of the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) eligibility requirements. Once this plan is full of "sick" people, it's only logical that a new catagory will be introduced to accept healthy people, whose premiums will offset the cost of insuring the high-risk folks. Viola!, you then have a true Public Option that will destroy the private insurance industry, if the premiums are low enough.
Unless the new Republican/TeaParty House Majority cause ObamaCare to unravel, this scenario isn't as far fetched as it seemed 12 months ago, IMO.
-Allen
- 901
I got into an argument a few days ago with a liberal friend of mine who was so adamant about those damn insurance companies making so much money I thought he was going to explode in rage. He sounded just like any other typical uninformed liberal who was arguing against insurance companies and in favor of anything else - single payor being option number one.
So I asked him this question: If the Government were the only option and your premiums were still increasing by 15% a year, who would you blame then?
Well - that wouldn't happen, he said.
But as we talked through it I think he finally began to understand my point which was that it is a fallacy that insurance companies are running the game - they're just another player in it.
Pelosi's approach was genius - blame the insurance companies.
But in reality, they aren't to blame any more so than any other player in the system.
In the end, I do believe we are headed toward a taxpayer funded universal coverage scheme - but it is decades away. Really, what other choice is there?
Family premiums already are running around $15,000 a year for a typical plan. Sure, subsidies are on the way - but surely at some point even die-hard lunatics like me would rather pay slightly higher taxes and drop the high priced insurance policy - that I never seem to need.
The one thing that would make that system work would be true mandatory participation - everyone would pay higher taxes. And therein lies the fallacy of Obamacare because participation never will be sufficient to properly even out the playing field.
So I asked him this question: If the Government were the only option and your premiums were still increasing by 15% a year, who would you blame then?
Well - that wouldn't happen, he said.
But as we talked through it I think he finally began to understand my point which was that it is a fallacy that insurance companies are running the game - they're just another player in it.
Pelosi's approach was genius - blame the insurance companies.
But in reality, they aren't to blame any more so than any other player in the system.
In the end, I do believe we are headed toward a taxpayer funded universal coverage scheme - but it is decades away. Really, what other choice is there?
Family premiums already are running around $15,000 a year for a typical plan. Sure, subsidies are on the way - but surely at some point even die-hard lunatics like me would rather pay slightly higher taxes and drop the high priced insurance policy - that I never seem to need.
The one thing that would make that system work would be true mandatory participation - everyone would pay higher taxes. And therein lies the fallacy of Obamacare because participation never will be sufficient to properly even out the playing field.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Los Angeles Fires Become Existential Test for California’s Stopgap Insurer- Latest: marindependent
-
