Obama's Secret Insurance Bailout

[BoberFett]

I'd say rather that the public option is a single payer option within the full system, just as the VA. But either way, the public option is a very short walk to collapse of the private health insurance business, as the federal government now also has total control over its competitors and can simply mandate a very low payout for its program knowing the balance must be made up from its competitors. We're seeing the same thing in Medicare/Medicaid where the reimbursement is usually below the cost of providing the service.

Except that the question was a public option with a wall between it and the treasury, meaning any such system would have to be self funding, and therefore couldn't use public funds to push private options out of the market via predatory pricing.

Personally, I'd be 100% for a public option of that sort, assuming they'd be running under the same rules as private companies. Let's prove just how good or bad government coverage can be. Either it will quickly show us how greedy private insurance companies are, or will prove the Republicans right and that government bloated and poorly run the government is.

 

[werepossum]

Except that the question was a public option with a wall between it and the treasury, meaning any such system would have to be self funding, and therefore couldn't use public funds to push private options out of the market via predatory pricing.

Personally, I'd be 100% for a public option of that sort, assuming they'd be running under the same rules as private companies. Let's prove just how good or bad government coverage can be. Either it will quickly show us how greedy private insurance companies are, or will prove the Republicans right and that government bloated and poorly run the government is.

Two questions. First, do you honestly believe that Democrats would allow such a system to fail rather than use tax money to prop it up? Seems to me that if we get it, we have it forever as the narrative switches from "It'll be better" to "Republicans want to take health insurance away from poor people."

And second, what's to keep government from setting its own compensation rate schedule artificially low, not only keeping itself solvent but also directly driving up its competitors' costs?

 

[BoberFett]

Two questions. First, do you honestly believe that Democrats would allow such a system to fail rather than use tax money to prop it up? Seems to me that if we get it, we have it forever as the narrative switches from "It'll be better" to "Republicans want to take health insurance away from poor people."

And second, what's to keep government from setting its own compensation rate schedule artificially low, not only keeping itself solvent but also directly driving up its competitors' costs?

Insurance companies already negotiate with providers, what's the difference? If it's too low, providers can deny taking that insurance just like they can deny Medicare right now, limiting the choices that people using that form of payment can have and rendering it a "lesser" quality service than private insurance. If some providers can figure out how accept the public option reimbursement rates without forcing their other accepted insurers to make up the difference. If the private insurers find that the provider is jacking up their rates to make up for accepting the public option, the private insurer can always drop them from their network and limit payments to that provider themselves. It all has a way of balancing out.

The individual mandate has already set the stage for all of this.

 

[werepossum]

Insurance companies already negotiate with providers, what's the difference? If it's too low, providers can deny taking that insurance just like they can deny Medicare right now, limiting the choices that people using that form of payment can have and rendering it a "lesser" quality service than private insurance. If some providers can figure out how accept the public option reimbursement rates without forcing their other accepted insurers to make up the difference. If the private insurers find that the provider is jacking up their rates to make up for accepting the public option, the private insurer can always drop them from their network and limit payments to that provider themselves. It all has a way of balancing out.

The individual mandate has already set the stage for all of this.

The difference is that it's the government. Refuse to accept the "public option" and risk visits from the IRS, FDA, and OSHA.

 

[BoberFett]

The difference is that it's the government. Refuse to accept the "public option" and risk visits from the IRS, FDA, and OSHA.

Is that happening now with providers who don't take Medicare?

 

[Jhhnn]

Two questions. First, do you honestly believe that Democrats would allow such a system to fail rather than use tax money to prop it up? Seems to me that if we get it, we have it forever as the narrative switches from "It'll be better" to "Republicans want to take health insurance away from poor people."

And second, what's to keep government from setting its own compensation rate schedule artificially low, not only keeping itself solvent but also directly driving up its competitors' costs?

First you offer that govt would need to bail it out. Then you offer that they could rig the market in their favor.

Which one is it there in your magic crystal ball anyway? Or is this a sample of the usual fling shit & see what sticks routine?

 

[Jhhnn]

The difference is that it's the government. Refuse to accept the "public option" and risk visits from the IRS, FDA, and OSHA.

I'll take conspiracy theory for $1000, Alex.