UHC Public Option is Dead

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Hopefully they use the tears of the super rich in a responsible way.

because the super rich are eeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilll :roll:

Don't you quote Jesus at me.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Or this:

1. Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds. In that legislation dont infringe on the private sector. i.e. ditch the 5 year grace period, and dont allow the government to determine what minimum requirements are.
2. Sit and wait. Allow the private market to adjust to coverage and pricing, thus being a competitor to the government program.
3. Private insurers allow the market to determine it's needs, and deliver a product accordingly.
4. Offer a tax credit to those who choose a private plan as opposed to those who choose a public plan (dont tax me for services I dont use).
5. We have a competitve market with an optional public option.


Thats (in general) what I would like to see.

I do not think the private sector can compete with an entity that does not have profit as a motivator. Also, the government does have virtually unlimited resources or capital to compete with.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
I do not think the private sector can compete with an entity that does not have profit as a motivator. Also, the government does have virtually unlimited resources or capital to compete with.

ever buy bottled water or know someone who did?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Or this:

1. Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds. In that legislation dont infringe on the private sector. i.e. ditch the 5 year grace period, and dont allow the government to determine what minimum requirements are.
2. Sit and wait. Allow the private market to adjust to coverage and pricing, thus being a competitor to the government program.
3. Private insurers allow the market to determine it's needs, and deliver a product accordingly.
4. Offer a tax credit to those who choose a private plan as opposed to those who choose a public plan (dont tax me for services I dont use).
5. We have a competitve market with an optional public option.


Thats (in general) what I would like to see.

What is your prediction on pricing for #2? Pricing will inevitably go UP. Medicine is not an economics of scale problem, it's a shortage of supply problem.

What is to prevent the masses to shift from private to public? What will prevent corporate health benefits to drop private and opt for public?

How will private compete with public which will no doubt have superior pricing power and has no profit margin to achieve?

#4 They are already talking about taxing medical benefits now (which are pre-tax deductions), what makes you think a tax credit will be offered?

#5 We will not have a competitive market, the only way for private to survive is to lower its standards to the public level. More likely that 99% insurers go bankrupt, and the only insurance that remains will be gold plated platinum plus insurance for the ultra rich.

How will they fund the public option?

Originally posted by: JS80
What is your prediction on pricing for #2? Pricing will inevitably go UP. Medicine is not an economics of scale problem, it's a shortage of supply problem.

Hard to predict what will happen with pricing. But I think there's a misunderstanding that people will automatically go to the lowest price. Of course alot will, but look at USPS vs Fedx vs UPS. FedEx/UPS pricing is typically more than USPS, and yet they arent starving for business. In fact, as we all know, the government itself uses them quite a bit. As far as shortage of supply, it is a problem. Its a threefold problem actually. First, we have a SERIOUS shortage of health care workers. It's the job Americans dont want to do, thus we import a ton of talent from foreign countries (mostly Philippines). The second, very related to the first, is we dont have enough schools to educate new people. Many (certainly not all) RN/doctor programs are full. Lastly, attrition in medicine is terrible. Doctors are leaving the profession at an increased pace due to cost, insurance company requirements, and the risk of lawsuits. So shortage is a serious issue that wont be addressed with this legislation, but I believe we will really see the healthcare industry cripple in the next 20 years when demand from baby boomers starts.

Originally posted by: JS80
What is to prevent the masses to shift from private to public? What will prevent corporate health benefits to drop private and opt for public?

Nothing will prevent it. But I think you will agree the private insurance industry is bloated. Maybe this will be a wake up call to reorganize. Its possible.

Originally posted by: JS80
How will private compete with public which will no doubt have superior pricing power and has no profit margin to achieve?

See my above comments.

Originally posted by: JS80
They are already talking about taxing medical benefits now (which are pre-tax deductions), what makes you think a tax credit will be offered?

Nothing. If you re-read what I wrote, its what I believe would be fair, and what I'd like to see.

Originally posted by: JS80
We will not have a competitive market, the only way for private to survive is to lower its standards to the public level. More likely that 99% insurers go bankrupt, and the only insurance that remains will be gold plated platinum plus insurance for the ultra rich.

How will they fund the public option?

First, think you assume people will always pick the lowest cost option. I highly disagree. In fact, the free market system is proof that isnt always true. As I mentioned above, the insurance undustry needs to reform itself, and maybe this will be the spark.

How will they fund it? Well, what *is* and what *should be* are two different things. What is, is tax increases for the rich. I dont like it, I dont agree with it, but its reality. What should be? If youre on a public option, pay a fucking tax. I dont care of it's 1%, but pay something.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Or this:

1. Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds. In that legislation dont infringe on the private sector. i.e. ditch the 5 year grace period, and dont allow the government to determine what minimum requirements are.
2. Sit and wait. Allow the private market to adjust to coverage and pricing, thus being a competitor to the government program.
3. Private insurers allow the market to determine it's needs, and deliver a product accordingly.
4. Offer a tax credit to those who choose a private plan as opposed to those who choose a public plan (dont tax me for services I dont use).
5. We have a competitve market with an optional public option.


Thats (in general) what I would like to see.

I know people who are absolutely convinced that any government option will eventually lead to single payer for all. They just don't want to let it in the door. I think the risk is there, but I don't see it as inevitable. I think insurance companies can and will adapt, and that there's room for them in terms of providing better service than the gov't can. I still ship FedEx over the postal service when I absolutely need it to get there. Insurance companies rake in billions now, while they decline 30% of first claims. If they have to trim those margins to be competetive, and to provide a "don't fuck your clients" service, so be it.

I agree...but insurance company profit margins arent that large. Its operating costs that are.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I think you realize that all the above is what you would *like* to see. In reality it will not happen the way you see it.

The Fedex/UPS vs USPS analogy is not a very good one. On the surface it seems like a good one, but it's not, mainly because the services offered are effectively different products. The one thing we can take away from it is that USPS loses billions of dollars (I think run rate is a loss of $1 billion a month?).

What is your definition of private industry being bloated? I think by now the cost structure is so that it's necessary to conduct business. Otherwise why would the industry be content with 3-4% profit margins?

Yes, I do assume that people will always pick the lowest cost option. That is a given in economics. However, in our case, that is irrelevant. People do not have the "choice" per se. Corporate management picks the benefit plans for us. I have been in meetings where we were going to choose between Blue Cross and United Health. We chose BC because they were cheaper. We didn't really care that UH had a slightly better "plan" offering per se - we just picked the cheapest option. And we review the plan every year vs the competitors. My point is that I think my assumption that the lowest cost option will be chosen almost all the time is a correct one. Regardless, considering the low 4% profit margin the industry operates on, it only takes a small portion of the population to choose the lowest cost option for the industry to literally go bankrupt.

I think the biggest false assumption you are making is that by introducing the public option, you are injecting "competition" and you are effectively forcing the insurance cos to adapt in order to compete which in turn lowers prices. But you are wrong. Here is why:

I love the notion that by offering a public plan it will inject competition and reduce costs. The problem with medicine is a SUPPLY problem, not an economies of scale problem. There is a short supply of medicine, and by offering artificially low priced "public option" you are effectively increasing demand. The supply remains fixed (unless you have magic beans that grow doctors, nurses, medical centers instantly) and demand skyrockets on an already strained system. This can only result higher prices.

What's going to happen is there will be two segments of medicine created. Whether it's a government agency or a coop a new org is created, and they will have to recruit doctors that will accept their low payout insurance. This attracts the lowest common denominator doctors. So what it does is creates a two tier medical system: public option doctors (probably poor performers), and private insurance doctors.

As with most under-priced goods and freebies, there is an immediate shortage and the public option is at over capacity. I predict private insurance will probably remain the same, but the prices will go up (PO competes for doctors, demand increases, prices/wages increase). They will not be accepting PO patients. Workers will see reduced pay in order to compensate for the increases in premiums; after all, all-in compensation should not be increasing.

Then the cluster-fun begins. The media will start broadcasting propaganda showing waiting rooms and hospitals of the PO system in disarray. Politicians will claim that it is discrimination for any doctor to reject PO insurance and will pass a law that disallows doctors that accept insurance to deny PO patients. The private system will now be combined with public and all medicine becomes public/private hybrid. Of course since we have a supply problem the system is further strained.

Meanwhile the rich of course will keep their doctors because they can just pay cash.

And because of the lack of funds there will be low PO payouts and more and more doctors will get out of medicine (career change and early retirement) and future candidates for MDs will seriously reconsider it as a career. The best of the best will consolidate and create the cash market and more doctors will migrate away from the PO. Maybe politicians will make private health practices illegal? Regardless, what ultimately will happen is long waits and rationing. Who knows, in order to curtail costs maybe we will get the death panel the right has been "misinforming" the public about.

Private insurers' profit margins will deteriorate because doctors will charge more for private to subsidize public. Customer migration to the PO and price controls will reduce revenues and will make managed health providers take huge losses from their traditional 4% profit margin. They go bankrupt. The public option will be a money pit because poor people won't pay anything and unhealthy people will contribute significantly less. Then the ones on the private plans will realize it makes no sense and all will get dumped on public and eventually evolve to UHC.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The Democrats will just re-rand the government options as "co-ops" and they and sell those. Funny thing is that we have health care co-ops right now so I am not sure why the federal government has to get involved in the co-op business.

Speaking of co-ops, they don't work, in the long term. Free market 'wins' again:

PacAdvantage: Adverse Selection Death Spiral

August 17, 2006 in Current Events, Health Insurance

The adverse selection death spiral has reared its ugly head again. PacAdvantage, an insurance pooling company for 6000 small and medium sized businesses in California has closed its doors. The Sacramento Business Journal reports (?Backer pulls plug on PacAdvantage health purchasing pool?) that the three remaining insurers underwriting the plan have pulled out. Michael Holt of The Health Care Blog analyzes has some perceptive analysis of the situation:

?What happens to voluntary purchasing pools? Simple economics?they only get customers who can?t get a better deal in the underwritten insurance market and so they go into a death spiral where the people in them are too sick to be supported by the premiums they charge. Today PacAdvantage announced that it was closing down, throwing 110,000 people into the small group and individual market, where by definition, no insurer wants them (unless they?re like me?very lucky).

PacAdvantage is the type of organization that our friends in the ?voluntary universal insurance? world (Cato, Galen et al) think is going to solve all of our problems, with no need for pesky mandates to buy insurance, or for community rating, or standardized benefits packages.?

In my June 15th post, I mentioned Cutler and Zeckhauser?s 1997 paper which discussed this concept of an adverse selection death spiral in the context of Harvard?s employee health insurance plans.

Boy i wish Cato/libertarians/republicans would stop making these stupid suggestions that never work.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/08/17/pacadvantage-adverse-selection-death-spiral/

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I think you realize that all the above is what you would *like* to see. In reality it will not happen the way you see it.

Correct. I stated as such.

Originally posted by: JS80
The Fedex/UPS vs USPS analogy is not a very good one. On the surface it seems like a good one, but it's not, mainly because the services offered are effectively different products. The one thing we can take away from it is that USPS loses billions of dollars (I think run rate is a loss of $1 billion a month?).

But it is, although a very simplistic one. Effectively a public option is not a product either. Its a service. The losses in USPS are a recent thing also, not a sustained one. But I get your point.

Originally posted by: JS80
What is your definition of private industry being bloated? I think by now the cost structure is so that it's necessary to conduct business. Otherwise why would the industry be content with 3-4% profit margins?

Dont misunderstand me when I say bloated. I didnt say bloated profits, because we both know its not; however, expenses are. The shit that happens in between gross revenue and net profits. Administration. Advertising. PAC contributions. Things like that. Let me give you a real life example. In 1989 I opened an espresso bar. I sold a double tall mocha for $2.50. Starbucks sold a double tall mocha for $3.25; however, my cost per cup was about $1.00 or so, while Starbuck's was about $2.75. So, even though I offered the lower priced product, I made a higher profit margin...so who was effectively taking advantage of customers more? I was, due to profit margin; however, Starbucks had a shitload of more overhead and expense than I did. I hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes, I do assume that people will always pick the lowest cost option. That is a given in economics. However, in our case, that is irrelevant. People do not have the "choice" per se. Corporate management picks the benefit plans for us. I have been in meetings where we were going to choose between Blue Cross and United Health. We chose BC because they were cheaper. We didn't really care that UH had a slightly better "plan" offering per se - we just picked the cheapest option. And we review the plan every year vs the competitors. My point is that I think my assumption that the lowest cost option will be chosen almost all the time is a correct one. Regardless, considering the low 4% profit margin the industry operates on, it only takes a small portion of the population to choose the lowest cost option for the industry to literally go bankrupt.

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at any product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

Originally posted by: JS80
I think the biggest false assumption you are making is that by introducing the public option, you are injecting "competition" and you are effectively forcing the insurance cos to adapt in order to compete which in turn lowers prices. But you are wrong. Here is why:

Then we can agree to disagree.

Dont misunderstand me JS, Im not all gung ho for what the Dems are proposing. If you've read all my posts you would see Im not. In fact, I have yet to see any bill that qualifies as reform, but it may be a matter of semantics. To me, a huge welfare bill giving insurance to the uninsured isnt reform. Its welfare. If it WAS reform, it would benefit everyone, which these bills dont. They benefit those without health care.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

if private enterprise can't compete with government run insurance, they should go out of business. what is the problem with this idea?

 

[JS80]

Dont misunderstand me when I say bloated. I didnt say bloated profits, because we both know its not; however, expenses are. The shit that happens in between gross revenue and net profits. Administration. Advertising. PAC contributions. Things like that. Let me give you a real life example. In 1989 I opened an espresso bar. I sold a double tall mocha for $2.50. Starbucks sold a double tall mocha for $3.25; however, my cost per cup was about $1.00 or so, while Starbuck's was about $2.75. So, even though I offered the lower priced product, I made a higher profit margin...so who was effectively taking advantage of customers more? I was, due to profit margin; however, Starbucks had a shitload of more overhead and expense than I did. I hope that makes sense.

G&A, S&M are all costs that are necessary to achieve the revenue targets. If they are wasting money then they would not survive the competition. The board would fire management, etc.

Bottom line is that these public corporations all have a goal which is to generate as much a return to its shareholders, and even with that pressure they are at 4% margins. Since you are not in the finance department of a managed healthcare provider it's hard to say whether their cost structure is bloated or not.

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at ay product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

All those examples you gave, we are direct decision makers for those purchases. However, most people do not decide their own managed healthcare provider, the benefits department of their employers do.

Then we can agree to disagree.

Dont misunderstand me JS, Im not all gung ho for what the Dems are proposing. If you've read all my posts you would see Im not. In fact, I have yet to see any bill that qualifies as reform, but it may be a matter of semantics. To me, a huge welfare bill giving insurance to the uninsured isnt reform. Its welfare. If it WAS reform, it would benefit everyone, which these bills dont. They benefit those without health care.

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

if private enterprise can't commete with government run insurance, they shoudl go out of business.

Figuring that governments decide what the private insurers have to offer along with not having to run the government plan in the black (the gov option will loose money and have to be subsidized), how can private insurers stay in business.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JS80

Dont misunderstand me when I say bloated. I didnt say bloated profits, because we both know its not; however, expenses are. The shit that happens in between gross revenue and net profits. Administration. Advertising. PAC contributions. Things like that. Let me give you a real life example. In 1989 I opened an espresso bar. I sold a double tall mocha for $2.50. Starbucks sold a double tall mocha for $3.25; however, my cost per cup was about $1.00 or so, while Starbuck's was about $2.75. So, even though I offered the lower priced product, I made a higher profit margin...so who was effectively taking advantage of customers more? I was, due to profit margin; however, Starbucks had a shitload of more overhead and expense than I did. I hope that makes sense.

G&A, S&M are all costs that are necessary to achieve the revenue targets. If they are wasting money then they would not survive the competition. The board would fire management, etc.

Bottom line is that these public corporations all have a goal which is to generate as much a return to its shareholders, and even with that pressure they are at 4% margins. Since you are not in the finance department of a managed healthcare provider it's hard to say whether their cost structure is bloated or not.

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at ay product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

All those examples you gave, we are direct decision makers for those purchases. However, most people do not decide their own managed healthcare provider, the benefits department of their employers do.

Then we can agree to disagree.

Dont misunderstand me JS, Im not all gung ho for what the Dems are proposing. If you've read all my posts you would see Im not. In fact, I have yet to see any bill that qualifies as reform, but it may be a matter of semantics. To me, a huge welfare bill giving insurance to the uninsured isnt reform. Its welfare. If it WAS reform, it would benefit everyone, which these bills dont. They benefit those without health care.

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

Fair enough. But at the end of the day, its really not worth putting too much emotion into. UHC is dead at this point. If the house and the senate can agree on something, we can take a look then.

:beer:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

if private enterprise can't commete with government run insurance, they shoudl go out of business.

Figuring that governments decide what the private insurers have to offer along with not having to run the government plan in the black (the gov option will loose money and have to be subsidized), how can private insurers stay in business.

#1 prove the bold.
#2 i assume the the government plan will have to meet the same standards as the private one
#3 if they can't outperform the bloated, inefficiency, etc government, why should they stay in business? They absolutely should not.

in a perfect world we woudl kill private insured healthcare and move directly to a single payer or nhs system.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Dont misunderstand me when I say bloated. I didnt say bloated profits, because we both know its not; however, expenses are. The shit that happens in between gross revenue and net profits. Administration. Advertising. PAC contributions. Things like that. Let me give you a real life example. In 1989 I opened an espresso bar. I sold a double tall mocha for $2.50. Starbucks sold a double tall mocha for $3.25; however, my cost per cup was about $1.00 or so, while Starbuck's was about $2.75. So, even though I offered the lower priced product, I made a higher profit margin...so who was effectively taking advantage of customers more? I was, due to profit margin; however, Starbucks had a shitload of more overhead and expense than I did. I hope that makes sense.

G&A, S&M are all costs that are necessary to achieve the revenue targets. If they are wasting money then they would not survive the competition. The board would fire management, etc.

Bottom line is that these public corporations all have a goal which is to generate as much a return to its shareholders, and even with that pressure they are at 4% margins. Since you are not in the finance department of a managed healthcare provider it's hard to say whether their cost structure is bloated or not.

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at ay product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

All those examples you gave, we are direct decision makers for those purchases. However, most people do not decide their own managed healthcare provider, the benefits department of their employers do.

Then we can agree to disagree.

Dont misunderstand me JS, Im not all gung ho for what the Dems are proposing. If you've read all my posts you would see Im not. In fact, I have yet to see any bill that qualifies as reform, but it may be a matter of semantics. To me, a huge welfare bill giving insurance to the uninsured isnt reform. Its welfare. If it WAS reform, it would benefit everyone, which these bills dont. They benefit those without health care.

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

Fair enough. But at the end of the day, its really not worth putting too much emotion into. UHC is dead at this point. If the house and the senate can agree on something, we can take a look then.

:beer:

Well I prefer nothing to happen because no matter what they decide on, it will be "one step" closer to UHC. It will be a huge leap closer with a public option.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How does one make a "government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance"?

You charge people a fraction of what the market rate for medical insurance is, and cover the rest with taxpayer money. Just like any other welfare/subsidy program.


Hawaii tried this same thing, and too many people started dropping private for government. It was over in months.

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3SBEUG0&show_article=1

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at any product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

Haha, what? that's a terrible argument. I'm guessing you've never taken any economics or marketing classes. You're grouping firms that are commodities (i.e. oil, and you're still somewhat wrong about comparing this to healthcare) with monopolistically competitive companies.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

Supply remains fixed, demand goes up.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

if private enterprise can't commete with government run insurance, they shoudl go out of business.

Figuring that governments decide what the private insurers have to offer along with not having to run the government plan in the black (the gov option will loose money and have to be subsidized), how can private insurers stay in business.

Ask FedEx and UPS.

 

[OCGuy]

According to Drudge right now, the House does not have the votes to get this done.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

 

[Pens1566]

For all those saying public option == death of private insurance, have you actually looked at how many people the CBO estimates would use it? I'm guessing no.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Or this:

1. Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds. In that legislation dont infringe on the private sector. i.e. ditch the 5 year grace period, and dont allow the government to determine what minimum requirements are.
2. Sit and wait. Allow the private market to adjust to coverage and pricing, thus being a competitor to the government program.
3. Private insurers allow the market to determine it's needs, and deliver a product accordingly.
4. Offer a tax credit to those who choose a private plan as opposed to those who choose a public plan (dont tax me for services I dont use).
5. We have a competitve market with an optional public option.


Thats (in general) what I would like to see.

Same here, actually.

I'd actually prefer this change though:

(1) Cross out "with unlimited source of funds"
(4) Legislate that collections (premiums, deductibles, third-party collections) have to equal the total (mandatory + discretionary) spending