When is a "Public Option" not a public option?

[Apollo11]

Is it when the President says "it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance"?

Is it when the President says "it would not impact those of you who already have insurance"?

Or is it when the President says "we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up"?

Does this mean that 95% of customers would rather buy a for-profit plan from a private insurance company that funnels your money into profits for shareholders and bonuses for executives?

Or does it mean that most folks won't be given the choice of switching over to a not-for-profit plan?


Please can someone help me out here. I am confused. :eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

1. At very least, every employer in the US should be able to choose the public option.

Not just employers with under 25 employees.

The House bill only lets employers with under 25 employees or which get special permission to choose the public option.

[Apollo11]

2. Why would anyone choose to pay extra for private insurance?

Just so private insurance company executives can get rich?

Especially when we know that these companies try their best to avoid paying out when a customer gets sick.

Only an anti-government ideologue would freely choose to pay extra for a private insurance plan.

A genuine Public Option would take market share away from private insurance companies.

So maybe the insurance companies and their political puppets are right to be afraid?

[el_bryanto]

3. Well that is of course the Insurance Companies argument

The public option will by its nature eliminate the private sector - it will be able to out compete the private insurers because the government will subsidize it. So it will be cheaper; and businesses will sign up for it and individuals too. So basically passing the public option is passing single payer gradually.

I don't know if that argument makes sense myself. I don't think the public option is intended to be the best healthcare possible; rather it's a fallback for those who don't have any other options? but i'm not an expert.

Bryant

[Apollo11]

4. A self-financing public option for the sick and poor makes no sense at all

As I see it, the whole point of a public option is that it would provide reliable comprehensive coverage for an affordable price.

Why pay more for private insurance when you cannot be certain it will cover all your bills when you actually need it?

The only way I can see of limiting the public option to 5% market share is if they oblige 95% to buy private insurance.

[el_bryanto]

8. You are familiar with the WalMart argument?

Walmart destroys small businesses because, by economy of scale, they can outcompete the small businesses in the community. Once they have the market to themselves they are free to do what they like.

Conservatives and Insurance companies would argue that the public option, particularly as you envision it, will do the same thing. Once we are all stuck on the public option; once we have a de facto single payer system, well, then they can do whatever they like to us.

Lets be clear; whatever you and I might personally think of the Health Insurance industry, the President and Congress do not intend to put it out of business.

Bryant

[Apollo11]

9. The difference is that private health insurance is a racket

In any other line of business - the customer expects to get something for their money.

Insurance is different, because you might pay premiums for 10 or 20 years before you need to use it.

If there is a deductible, then it might only be rarely that you would ever make a claim.

Until that day comes, you have no way to measure the quality of the service the insurance company is providing.

Basically you are paying money for the hope that they will cover your costs if something bad happens to you.

This is why I don't understand the idea that most folks are happy with their current plans.

How would you know if it is a good plan or not - if you never really needed to use it?

[el_bryanto]

10. And that's a good argument in favor of a Single Payer system

But I think Congress/the President have determined that the Single Payer system isn't workable from a political standpoint (and in fairness there are other countries with private insurances schemes where it works a lot better than here).

Bryant

[TransitJohn]

5. When the public can't buy in.

Not a public option. I'm going to be locked in to my shitty shitty employer sponsored plan which is just extortion and racketeering.

[Apollo11]

6. Your sig says it all!

:kick:

[Festivito]

14. When we are not free to choose it. Yup. /nt

[Echo In Light]

7. Intentionally vague and fuzzy framing of PO = Strategizing for ins companies?

[Romulox]

11. "Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."

Some people have a LOT of trouble with the part that comes after "Let me be clear." Either Obama isn't the orator some would have him, or their basic language skills are wanting.

But it is clear that President Obama envisions a "public option" that is available only to a select few. It's for profit insurance for the bulk of us. If we don't all contribute to insurance company profits, then any new regulation of the healthcare industry will reduce its profits. And any reduction in their profits has been off the table since the beginning of this discussion.

[Echo In Light]

13. Hopefully the choice of words wasn't intentionally side-stepping the obvious.

[Johonny]

12. my understanding of this

I think it mean many Americans have insurance from their companies and thus aren't "shopping" for insurance. Thus they aren't trying to create an insurance program for the already insured (they are trying to force insurance companies to honor their contracts with these people instead). It appears the Public option is being geared towards people not already insured and not eligible for government programs already. It's not clear if the program will eventually expand beyond this initial target market or if the public option is a non-for profit organization, a government organization or simply regulated for profit private insurance organization.

[Apollo11]

15. Where is the incentive for private insurers to reduce the premiums they charge?

If their customers don't have the possibility of switching to something that is cheaper - like a not-for-profit option - they can keep on charging as much as they think they can get away with.

In any case a private company has to charge more than a non-profit health insurance provider. Their premiums also have to cover:
- marketing, advertising, sponsorship, etc.
- bureaucrats looking for reasons not to make payments
- lobbying and campaign donations (buying legislators)
- executive compensation including bonuses
- profits to keep shareholders happy

A public option could forget about all of the above, and just concentrate on covering people's healthcare costs, and getting good deals from healthcare suppliers.

[Apollo11]

16. Cenk Ukgur (TYT) is asking the same questions

Cenk is also unable to see how a "Public Option" that is limited in size to around 5% market share would force the private insurance companies to lower the premiums they charge.

You can watch his argumentation over on the Political Videos Forum:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x368930