Is this the inevitable death of the Public Option?

[Mark1031]

Just let people buy into Medicare at any age. That is the most politically easy idea to make clear to the "moderidiots" of the country. Because you know what, people like the single payer government run Medicare system, it's just that 1/2 the country is too stupid to know it is actually a government program.

 

[Leonel]

...It's like they're assuming that the people they're talking to are complete idiots.

Yeah... yeah...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You make it sound so easy. So why hasn't a nonprofit yet been set up, by private nonprofit groups, that sells insurance nationwide, paid for by premiums, thus realizing those lower costs for the consumer? Or am I just talking nonsense again?

Largely because it is illegal for any insurance company too sell insurance across state boundaries. Different states have different laws regulating insurance, and nationwide insurance companies must operate by having seperate but affiliated offices in multiple states conforming to local regulations. This is one area where Democrats support States Rights, while Republicans note that overwriting the state laws to allow purchasing insurance across state lines is completely justified by a plain reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Democrats generally argue that health care costs are high everywhere and removing this boundary just won't do much good, ignoring that some states do have insurance plans several times cheaper than those in certain other states.

There are non profit insurance companies that provide insurance cheaper, at least in some states. In fact I recall hearing that in one of the states with the lowest healthcare costs for-profit healthcare is illegal. Perhaps some Democrats don't want us to be able to buy across state lines because they like this type of regulation but don't think that it would be politically possible on the national scale.

 

[Mark1031]

Perhaps some Democrats don't want us to be able to buy across state lines because they like this type of regulation but don't think that it would be politically possible on the national scale.

My understanding of the issue is that they (Dems) argue that it would result in a race to the bottom regulation wise and every insurance company would move to the least restrictive state and sell to the rest of the country from there. They would then use whatever rules old and or new that they could get passed (through their tremendous power in that state) to maximize profits rather than provide good insurance.

It sounds like a very reasonable argument to me.

 

[storical]

Oh I see, if the republicans are saying that, it must be true.
Oh I see, if Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says that it must be true.

Oh, I see, well if you say that it must be true. 10 times eh? Second rate? Third world countries. My, my. That Obama guy sure hates you people's guts. What is he thinking?

Glad you finally understand, see after all you realize it was not so hard to figure out.
Perhaps I exaggerate, but sometimes it is needed to set precedent on where issues and resolutions of issues may lead. Trust in Obama is certainly not very high, the next president is going to have alot more work to do to try to clean up any messes created foolishly by this administration. I just hope not too much damage is done.

 

[Bill3000]

Glad you finally understand, see after all you realize it was not so hard to figure out.

...you're kidding, right?

 

[Cutlass]

One thing people have to keep in mind about the insurance and state lines issue: The insurance industry has fought for about a century to prevent federal regulation of insurance. If we had federal, instead of state, regulation of insurance than the race to the bottom Mark mentioned would be less of an issue. Perhaps no issue at all. However if we stay with state regulation and allow insurance plans to cross state lines, than a race to the bottom becomes a near certainty.

So the real issue is not the Dems doing states rights and GOPers doing federalism. It's both parties, at the state level, at the behest of the insurance industry itself, fighting for state regulation of insurance instead of federal regulation. So at the federal level the Dems are reluctant to allow national insurance because they don't trust that the most anti-consumer state in the Union would protect the rights of the insured. While the GOPers do trust that the most anti-consumer state in the Union would not protect the rights of the insured.

 

[dirtyparrot]

first. non-profit doesn't mean actually 0 profit. Secondly, the system is already set up.

All you have to do is breakup the geographic cartels and insurance would change

I know non-profit doesn't mean 0 profit, but the goal is very different than for-profit. I don't think that it's as simple as breaking up the geographical cartels and magically the problem is for the most part solved.

 

[storical]

One thing people have to keep in mind about the insurance and state lines issue: The insurance industry has fought for about a century to prevent federal regulation of insurance. If we had federal, instead of state, regulation of insurance than the race to the bottom Mark mentioned would be less of an issue. Perhaps no issue at all. However if we stay with state regulation and allow insurance plans to cross state lines, than a race to the bottom becomes a near certainty.

So the real issue is not the Dems doing states rights and GOPers doing federalism. It's both parties, at the state level, at the behest of the insurance industry itself, fighting for state regulation of insurance instead of federal regulation. So at the federal level the Dems are reluctant to allow national insurance because they don't trust that the most anti-consumer state in the Union would protect the rights of the insured. While the GOPers do trust that the most anti-consumer state in the Union would not protect the rights of the insured.

A very valid point I never thought of it in that way.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

You make it sound so easy. So why hasn't a nonprofit yet been set up, by private nonprofit groups, that sells insurance nationwide, paid for by premiums, thus realizing those lower costs for the consumer? Or am I just talking nonsense again?

(Core question: why does the government-run nonprofit necessarily need to be government-run, if it will act just like any other nonprofit and not subsist on taxpayer subsidies?)

Because they can't compete across state lines, and the public option will be able to. The government-run aspect is there to provide a floor that will always be there. There's a lot of value in simply knowing that there will always be a basic plan there for you.

If there isn't going to be any draw out of the treasury, then why is there even a question as to whether it'll be deficit-neutral?

And, umm, what Integral said.

I didn't know it was "a question" as to whether it'll be deficit-neutral. I thought it was going to be. Is it a real issue? Do some of the bills include public options that aren't deficit neutral? (Bear in mind, I'm fine with that -- I'd love to see single-payer.)

I mean, there's "a question" as to whether there will be euthanasia of the elderly, too, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.

Cleo

 

[I'm Cleo!]

A very valid point I never thought of it in that way.

Look up your credit card statements. I'll bet the cards were issued in South Dakota.

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

Because they can't compete across state lines, and the public option will be able to. The government-run aspect is there to provide a floor that will always be there. There's a lot of value in simply knowing that there will always be a basic plan there for you.



I didn't know it was "a question" as to whether it'll be deficit-neutral. I thought it was going to be. Is it a real issue? Do some of the bills include public options that aren't deficit neutral? (Bear in mind, I'm fine with that -- I'd love to see single-payer.)

I mean, there's "a question" as to whether there will be euthanasia of the elderly, too, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.

Cleo

We can't let death panels die!!!!1!!!!111!

 

[JollyRoger]

We don't need a public option for death panels. I apparently run my own privatized death panel every time a client comes in for estate planning.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, but you can only serve as a death panel for a few 100 people a year, even if you dedicated to it full time. We need a government death panel to reach the masses.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Yeah, but you can only serve as a death panel for a few 100 people a year, even if you dedicated to it full time. We need a government death panel to reach the masses.

The private market won't be efficient enough, either. They'll be too hung up on profit margins. Probably only $0.80 of every dollar spent to euthanize the elderly will actually get spent on euthanasia.

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

The private market won't be efficient enough, either. They'll be too hung up on profit margins. Probably only $0.80 of every dollar spent to euthanize the elderly will actually get spent on euthanasia.

Cleo

And people claim privatization works.

 

[dirtyparrot]

The private market won't be efficient enough, either. They'll be too hung up on profit margins. Probably only $0.80 of every dollar spent to euthanize the elderly will actually get spent on euthanasia.

Cleo

The drugs for euthenasia will be too expensive for Americans, so the elderly will have to go north to Canada so that the Canadian death panels can properly kill them at a reasonable price.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually Canadians tired of waiting for the death panels to get around to them will come south to get shot.

 

[IglooDame]

Look up your credit card statements. I'll bet the cards were issued in South Dakota.

Cleo

Or Delaware? I thought Delaware was the Bermuda/Switzerland of the US credit card world.

I didn't know it was "a question" as to whether it'll be deficit-neutral. I thought it was going to be. Is it a real issue? Do some of the bills include public options that aren't deficit neutral? (Bear in mind, I'm fine with that -- I'd love to see single-payer.)

Wasn't the CBO estimating the cost of the then-most-popular congressional health care bill at a trillion dollars over the next ten years, or something like that? It was right after the Obama administration had declared that they wanted a deficit-neutral plan, and a bunch of people (even aside from the Rush/Beck/Palin types) said there's no way in hell viable reform won't cost serious money.

I mean, there's "a question" as to whether there will be euthanasia of the elderly, too, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.

Sure you laugh, but Mark Burnett cannot be stopped.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Or Delaware? I thought Delaware was the Bermuda/Switzerland of the US credit card world.

Yeah, Delaware's a big deal, too (the most lax corporate governance statutes in the country). Hence Biden's support of the awful bankruptcy bill. But South Dakota, IIRC, has the most lax usury laws in the country.

Wasn't the CBO estimating the cost of the then-most-popular congressional health care bill at a trillion dollars over the next ten years, or something like that? It was right after the Obama administration had declared that they wanted a deficit-neutral plan, and a bunch of people (even aside from the Rush/Beck/Palin types) said there's no way in hell viable reform won't cost serious money.

That estimate didn't include the public option. So it wasn't a measurement of the government subsidizing care supplied by the public option.

Cleo