Pelosi: Public healthcare plan should "not have an unfair advantage" over private insurance !!!!

[Better Believe It]

How about just an advantage Ms. Pelosi? Without an advantage, why in the world would anyone want a public option? Of course, any advantage that public insurance would have over private insurance would be considered unfair and almost communistic to the insurance tycoons!

Now let's get this straight Congresswomen Pelosi. Here's what really worries you.

With a "level playing field" and no "unfair advantage" over private insurance the public option might be acceptable to you. So what might those "unfair" advantages be that worry you so? We all know the answer to that question. The private insurance industry is scared to death that a robust public insurance plan would provide us with better coverage at a lower price than the private plans! No rocket science is involved to figure this out.

That's just darn unfair to the private insurance industry. Why? Well, the gravy train ride would be over. They'd have a hard time competing with a strong public insurance option unless they lowered their premiums and improved their coverage in order to "compete". And they sure can't have that!

From the New York Times
June 11, 2009

“I know that members have been very clear about what their concerns might be about a public option and I agree,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “It should be actuarially sound. It should be administrative and self-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/co-op-health-plan-emerging-as-a-senate-option/

[Triana]

1. It should be a REAL COMPETETOR with private insurance - and an advantage.

...is that "unfair" - well, if we want to discuss what's unfair we'd have to discuss the number of years private, for-profit insurance companies have been collecting billions of dollars in premiums and then REFUSING to pay for care - thus making the hideous profits they are allowed to make off of killing people by doing so.

Pfft.

[PM Martin]

5. For profit health insurance companies are a disaster.

Do not believe the hype, our system (Canada) works fine. Any flaws that exist are muted by the great advantages including guaranteed basic coverage and services for all at a low flat rate.

[Triana]

11. Thank you - that's what most people from Canada tell me - though...

...I had one person last week tell me about some of the problems there - and even if those problems exist - their system is STILL two hundred times better than the for-profit, private, rip-off, "let em eat shit and die" system we have here. STILL.

[UrbScotty]

2. Is there such a thing as an "unfair advantage?"

What advantage of a public option over a private option is 'unfair?'

[Jennicut]

3. I do get where you are coming from but Pelosi is not the problem, the Senate is

At least she is even for a public option.

[Better Believe It]

8. Only if it doesn't have an "unfair advantage" over private insurance

So what kind of "unfair advantage" could she be thinking of?

I can only think of two.

1. Much better comprehensive coverage

2. Lower premiums.

If you can think of any others please post them.

I agree that the main problem appears to be in the Senate. However, remember how the House rolled over to Republican Senate demands on the stimulus bill during reconciliation? Three Republican Senators wrote the stimulus bill and tore the guts out of the House version.

So we can't ignore what happens in the House especially with House so-called "blue dog" and "New Democrats" organizing against a public option.

[Jennicut]

13. Maybe but I would not focus on her as much as I would the conservadems in the Senate

They all need to be thrown out on their asses. I guess that is all you can get in conservative areas in the United States though. :(

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Fucking worthless Jellyfish

It's time PE-LOUSY was taken "off the table". Primary that useless tool.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I hear that

x(

[Laelth]

6. And why NOT? n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. This is one reason why

public option is not a good alternative to single payer. Competition and unfair advantage will always be an issue as long as a government program serves as an alternative to a private for profit plan.

We need to pass a single payer plan. Public option is a con and there are millions it will not help - but it will certainly make some folks feel like they did something.

Anything less than single payer is a sell out.

[Better Believe It]

10. I'm for single payer. But anything without a strong public option should be voted down

[Triana]

12. Agreed. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

23. Healthcare reform

is my line in the sand. I have no intention of voting for any candidate who does not support single payer. And I definitely will not vote for any current officeholder to retain their position if they do not support single payer. And I do not give a damn who may win by default.

Dems can deliver single payer if they want to. Thing is, they don't want to. And we should all be embarrassed by that.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. Fill the government truck up with cash

and back it right up to the insurance industry trough. I blame myself for ever considering the possibility that it would be anything else.

[DJ13]

14. If the real goal is to cut costs and increase coverage to 100%

An unfair advantage is a necessity.

The insurers wont willingly reduce costs unless they have real competition that can deliver the same care at lower prices.

Stop being a corporate lackey and get on with it.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. The real goal is to put more public money in private hands

So "healthcare reform" becomes "insurance reform" which is really just a way to pour more of our money in to the current insane private health care system. Go figure.

[DJ13]

18. Sadly, I agree

Im at the point where the idea of real reform has become so bastardized it would be better to kill it instead of needlessly throwing tax money into the bank accounts of the insurance industry with nothing to show for it.

[LooseWilly]

16. I read her statement as simply insisting that the "public option" be self supporting.

“It should be actuarially sound. It should be administrative and self-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage.”

Actuarially sound is just a matter of its accounting, (from http://www.hobbyfarmlife.com/dictionary_agriculture_terms/actuarially_sound.html )
" total premiums collected should more than offset total indemnities paid out.

Administrative and self-sufficient, again simply suggests that it should be ... self-sufficient.

"... It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage." I interpret the "unfair advantage" here as being one of being subsidized/allowed to operate at a loss.

All things considered... I think this sounds like a "public plan"... one in which those who sign up will have a (unless this is also sold away) large enough pool of insurees to allow the administrators to negotiate price discounts in the usual "economy of scale" fashion... and one which would not place any actual burden on the federal budget (after startup costs... presumably). it's not single payer... but it would (or rather, could conceivably) be a national scaled non-profit health delivery program...

If enough people signed up... it would, presumably, eventually evolve into Single Payer...

Of course... I don't mean to say that the whole process might not completely corrupt what is eventually delivered... but Pelosi's words are consistent with a reasonable implementation of a public option.

[redqueen]

37. Perhaps that is the case.

But just in case, I'm calling to let her know that triggers or co-ops are not wanted.

[NYC_SKP]

17. Simple. She means that it's competitiveness should be authentic, not artificial.

Makes sense to me, no need for drama.

“I know that members have been very clear about what their concerns might be about a public option and I agree,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “It should be actuarially sound. It should be administrative and elf-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage.”

And she is right, and it will be a better system and will cause the private providers to change their model or find some other way to make ungodly sums of money.

:thumbsup: to Nancy Pelosi!

:applause:

[Better Believe It]

20. So how do you think a public plan might be unfair to private insurance companies?

I personally hope a public plan has huge advantage over private plans in terms of cost and coverage.

If it doesn't, would you want to change from your private insurance to public insurance, assuming you currently are insured?

[DJ13]

22. If it doesn't......

.....the people unable to afford insurance today wont be able to afford the government plan of tomorrow.

It HAS to be cheaper, to have that "unfair advantage" in order to be of any value.

[NYC_SKP]

24. "Real advantage" vs "Unfair Advantage"...

I think it needs to stand fiscally on it's own, no hankypanky support from other funds.

It should be a model that compares structurally to the private model, enough to withstand scrutiny and criticism.

An unfair advantage, for example, would be to use legislation to make the private providers work from an un-level playing field, by holding them to a different standard, any number of ways.

Now, guaranteed, the private sector and the members of congress beholden to them will cry "unfair" no matter what we do.

Of course the public plan will have advantages, that's the point, the question is who will define "fair"?

[sandyd921]

19. Oh OK...

I guess it's better for us to have multiple lousy choices, public as well as private.

[puebloknot]

21. We wouldn't want to cause ...

... "irreparable damage" to the insurance companies, now would we? Even though they've been screwing over We the People for years.

What Pelosi needs is some time on the Holodeck, as an ill and uninsured person who can't get medical help. In real life, she is a spoiled society diva with no financial worries for the rest of her days. Savor the day when she's as concerned about real health care reform as she is about the state of her lipstick at any given moment.

[bertman]

31. "Savor the day when she's as concerned about real health care reform as she is

about the state of her lipstick at any given moment."

Thank you, puebloknot, that gave me a big smile.

[w4rma]

25. The current system favors the health insurance industry over *every other industry* in the nation!

The public option needs lots of advantages because every other industry in the nation is going broke.

[Better Believe It]

26. For Sunday DU'ers

[Cleita]

28. I thought that taking an advantage is at the bottom of the free market,

competitive philosophy. The insurance companies have used unfair advantage on the consumers all along by making the rules and changing them as they see fit to maintain that unfair advantage.

[Dr.Phool]

29. Time to go out to pasture, Nancy.

You outlived your usefulness, and relevancy, a long time ago.

[Brigid]

30. "Unfair advantage?"

Excuse me? Every claim paid comes burdened with $25 in administrative costs because insurance companies fight every one of them tooth and nail. And they get to pick and choose whom they cover. If you have a pre-existing condition, you can forget about coverage. And they will, with a straight face, try to deny a claim for emergency surgery because it wasn't "pre-approved." I know. I used to work customer service (what an oxymoron when you're talking about a health insurance company) for a large health insurance company, and I still think my heart problems began during that time. Speaker Pelosi, you just try working that job and see if you don't change your mind. I think you would.

[Cass]

32. What about worrying about the citizens being at an unfair disadvantage

for not being able to afford coverage, for being denied coverage, for being denied treatments, for dropping dead because they can't afford to go to the doctor? What about THAT unfair advantage??

I am so sick and tired of watching elected officials walking on eggshells so as not to inconvenience corporate interests who prey on consumers - credit card companies, health insurance companies, mortgage companies, etc. When will our elected officials put the people first and tell these corporate leeches to deal with it or get lost?

:argh:

[bertman]

33. "Unfair advantage"= not making enough obscene profits to pay off the Speaker of the House

and the rest of our elected so-called representatives.

The sorry excuse for a Speaker has a huge majority and she still won't act like a real Democrat. Gawd, how I hate that woman. Reminds me of The Joker, with her permanent mega smile.

[Vinca]

34. If there's no advantage, what's the point?

If public healthcare costs the same as private insurance, there's no reason to have this exercise.

[kenny blankenship]

35. Amazing. They can nakedly sell out the interests of 300 million Americans - right out in the open

and only about 30 people bother to say something about it here.

Fair? What about being fair to the taxpayers and patients? Holy fuck Nancy, if for profit insurance companies can't compete with a public plan, then their increment of profit represents nothing more than NEEDLESS SUFFERING AND DEATH FOR AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

[redqueen]

36. Kick for Monday calls to rep Pelosi.

Just to make sure she's not considering triggers or co-ops to be a good idea.