Obama drops the public option for health care

[pBills]

I am just going to laugh at the end of this, when again, nothing happens with Health Care. Then we'll see the same morons out there start to complain about their insurance going up, how it's to expensive, etc., etc.

[Magox]

I am just going to laugh at the end of this, when again, nothing happens with Health Care. Then we'll see the same morons out there start to complain about their insurance going up, how it's to expensive, etc., etc.

Why laugh at the "end of this", when you can laugh now.

 

It's hyyyysteeerical.

[DC Tom]

Why laugh at the "end of this", when you can laugh now.

 

It's hyyyysteeerical.

 

Because he's waiting to laugh at the hypocrisy of people who don't want the government to reduce health care costs, but want health care costs reduced anyway. Because only the government can reduce health care costs.

[Magox]

Because he's waiting to laugh at the hypocrisy of people who don't want the government to reduce health care costs, but want health care costs reduced anyway. Because only the government can reduce health care costs.

I believe that's what many believe.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because he's waiting to laugh at the hypocrisy of people who don't want the government to reduce health care costs, but want health care costs reduced anyway. Because only the government can reduce health care costs.

 

Actually "the public plan" would have private insurers cutting the costs, after the government sets the guidelines.

[Magox]

Actually "the public plan" would have private insurers cutting the costs, after the government sets the guidelines.

That doesn't Jive. If profit margins for Health insurers are minimal as it is, more competition would do very little to bring down costs. You should read that link/report from Wellpoint that I provided in the other thread.

[Magox]

That is what "the public plan" is though and what people don't seem to understand or bother to see for themselves. The government negotiates the lower rates that "the public" options will pay doctors and hospitals, etc. It will be above Medicare rates but below present private rates. All of the private insurers (as well as doctors) will choose whether or not they want to offer "public" versions of their coverage with those "public rates". They don't have to do it but the CBO says most of them will because they will want all the new customers.

 

But the government is not taking over health care, the government isn't hiring doctors or telling the private companies whether or not to pay for coverage for this person or that person. They are setting rates and standards and then private companies come in and decide whether or not they are going to offer "public" versions of their coverage in the "exchange".

 

This editorial is a pretty decent overview of the whole issue. Note though that when they start explaining the possible versions "The Robust Plan" is NOT being considered, but "The Lighter Version" is what is being considered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21sun1.html

Sounds like a beauracratic nightmare. If the government has to negotiate with the doctors and hospitals, the red tape will be unimaginable. It would seem logical to me that the doctors would prefer to take care of patients with private insurance as opposed to the "public option" that the government would be providing. At the end of the day, this screams to me lesser quality of health care for those on the "public option" and then a residual deterioration of quality to health care to those with private insurance.

 

I would imagine that this would drive many of the private insurers out of business. Private insurers wouldn't be able to compete with the government, simply because the government can sustain huge losses, they basically have unlimited resources to work with. The cost of the beauracratic red tape is going to be enormous, if the "public option" does lower the costs drastically from where they are today, then they will have to subsidize the losses, which would be very costly and would definitely add to the deficit.

 

I am more convinced than ever that this is a nightmare waiting to happen, and I am very glad to hear that the possibility of the "public option" of actually coming to fruition is become more faint by the day.

[Chef Jim]

The provision is for the doctors to explain the benefits and possibilites to their patients, not write the documents.

 

Not their job.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sounds like a beauracratic nightmare. If the government has to negotiate with the doctors and hospitals, the red tape will be unimaginable. It would seem logical to me that the doctors would prefer to take care of patients with private insurance as opposed to the "public option" that the government would be providing. At the end of the day, this screams to me lesser quality of health care for those on the "public option" and then a residual deterioration of quality to health care to those with private insurance.

 

I would imagine that this would drive many of the private insurers out of business. Private insurers wouldn't be able to compete with the government, simply because the government can sustain huge losses, they basically have unlimited resources to work with. The cost of the beauracratic red tape is going to be enormous, if the "public option" does lower the costs drastically from where they are today, then they will have to subsidize the losses, which would be very costly and would definitely add to the deficit.

 

I am more convinced than ever that this is a nightmare waiting to happen, and I am very glad to hear that the possibility of the "public option" of actually coming to fruition is become more faint by the day.

The government isn't going to subsidize the public plans (except perhaps to get the thing started, which is what they are going to do with the co-op idea, too). The plans have to pay for themselves, they can't just suffer losses and the government picks up the tab. The only subsidies from the government goes to individual tax payers and small businesses to help them pay for the required coverage.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not their job.

 

It's not a doctor's job to discuss with their own patient what kind of treatment he or she would prefer to get should they become incapacitated and unable to make the decision themselves? Whether or not he or she would like hospice care and what exactly that is. Whether or not he or she would like to spend their last few days or weeks or months or years on this earth at home with their loved ones instead of in a hospital?

[Magox]

The government isn't going to subsidize the public plans (except perhaps to get the thing started, which is what they are going to do with the co-op idea, too). The plans have to pay for themselves, they can't just suffer losses and the government picks up the tab. The only subsidies from the government goes to individual tax payers and small businesses to help them pay for the required coverage.

I don't believe that for one second. Not that I don't believe that is the way they intend it to be, but I don't believe that they will be able to achieve that. No way no how. It doesn't make sense Dog, if the Private Insurers only have about a 3% operating profit margin, and then you add in the beauracratic red tape costs associated with negotiating with the doctors and hospitals on top of that, there is a very little chance that they will be able to succeed in driving down costs significantly. Where are they going to be able to get the savings? My guess is that the costs of health care will be little unchanged from what it is today, with less quality and efficiency.

 

Don't discount what I just mentioned regarding the beauracratic costs involved. If you are going to have the government negotiate with the doctors and hospitals, that is going to be an enormous cost, just think about how long of a process that is going to be.

 

I can all ready think of a few "unintended consequences" of the "public option" health care plan.

 

This would be a complete disaster.

[Chef Jim]

It's not a doctor's job to discuss with their own patient what kind of treatment he or she would prefer to get should they become incapacitated and unable to make the decision themselves? Whether or not he or she would like hospice care and what exactly that is. Whether or not he or she would like to spend their last few days or weeks or months or years on this earth at home with their loved ones instead of in a hospital?

 

No it's not. It's between the family, their Estate Attorney and planner. Waaaay before it get's to this point. And you said to explain the benefits. What if a doctor doesn't know the benefits? BUT if the doctor wants to go ahead and explain that, why should I pay for his compensation to do so?

[DC Tom]

The provision is for the doctors to explain the benefits and possibilites to their patients, not write the documents.

 

That was actually a slam against Kaiser's habit of having lawyers and bean-counters override doctors' decisions.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't believe that for one second. Not that I don't believe that is the way they intend it to be, but I don't believe that they will be able to achieve that. No way no how. It doesn't make sense Dog, if the Private Insurers only have about a 3% operating profit margin, and then you add in the beauracratic red tape costs associated with negotiating with the doctors and hospitals on top of that, there is a very little chance that they will be able to succeed in driving down costs significantly. Where are they going to be able to get the savings? My guess is that the costs of health care will be little unchanged from what it is today, with less quality and efficiency.

 

Don't discount what I just mentioned regarding the beauracratic costs involved. If you are going to have the government negotiate with the doctors and hospitals, that is going to be an enormous cost, just think about how long of a process that is going to be.

 

I can all ready think of a few "unintended consequences" of the "public option" health care plan.

 

This would be a complete disaster.

Well, the CBO estimates the cost will be only 10% less for the public plans than the private ones. The care may be a little worse because it is the government option and not all providers and doctors will join although most probably will. It may not be as easy as private insurance to get some, say, appointments (not that it is easy now and I am just making that up, I don't know if it will be harder or not).

 

But that is the whole point, that you are giving people an option, you are not forcing anyone into the public plan. If they cannot afford the private insurance, they will opt for the cut rate kind the way people buy the Supermarket brand soup instead of the name brand soup for a few cents less. They know it's not as good but they want the soup and the trade off is better for them.

 

Some other organizations say the public plan will be 20-30% less. I don't see how that is possible but like you say it's impossible to say for sure. If more people go into the public plan because it is so much cheaper, then maybe the private insurers cut their rates or rework their rates with doctors and facilities to get those customers back.

 

What I don't understand is how the opposition says that two things are going to simultaneously happen: The government plan will be a total nightmare AND everyone will flock to the government plan. Why would people opt for alleged crap when it is their health care?

[DC Tom]

Well, the CBO estimates the cost will be only 10% less for the public plans than the private ones. The care may be a little worse because it is the government option and not all providers and doctors will join although most probably will. It may not be as easy as private insurance to get some, say, appointments (not that it is easy now and I am just making that up, I don't know if it will be harder or not).

 

It's always so much easier to argue with people who ADMIT TO MAKING THINGS UP.

 

But anyway...not the point I wanted make here. What I really wanted to point out is that we just got done establishing that margins in the insurance industry are thin...and they'll still be able to compete against a government-subsidized plan that's 10% cheaper? Let me do a little math here...yep, negative profit margins. Industry goes bankrupt.

[KD in CA]

It's always so much easier to argue with people who ADMIT TO MAKING THINGS UP.

 

But anyway...not the point I wanted make here. What I really wanted to point out is that we just got done establishing that margins in the insurance industry are thin...and they'll still be able to compete against a government-subsidized plan that's 10% cheaper? Let me do a little math here...yep, negative profit margins. Industry goes bankrupt.

 

 

Don't be silly. Obama won't let that happen. Instead he'll create the Insurance Industry Stimulus package to kick off his second term. We'll tax the "rich" to pay for it since they can afford it.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's always so much easier to argue with people who ADMIT TO MAKING THINGS UP.

 

But anyway...not the point I wanted make here. What I really wanted to point out is that we just got done establishing that margins in the insurance industry are thin...and they'll still be able to compete against a government-subsidized plan that's 10% cheaper? Let me do a little math here...yep, negative profit margins. Industry goes bankrupt.

We've also established that their administrative costs are 20%. We've also established that their profits are up 400% in the last decade. We've also established that they used to spend 95 cents per dollar for care and now it's 80, that's because their administrative percentage has skyrocketed. Cut them to 15-16% and their profit margins aren't quite so thin.

[IDBillzFan]

Don't be silly. Obama won't let that happen. Instead he'll create the Insurance Industry Stimulus package to kick off his second term. We'll tax the "rich" to pay for it since they can afford it.

Villify one group to save another.

 

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[Magox]

Well, the CBO estimates the cost will be only 10% less for the public plans than the private ones. The care may be a little worse because it is the government option and not all providers and doctors will join although most probably will. It may not be as easy as private insurance to get some, say, appointments (not that it is easy now and I am just making that up, I don't know if it will be harder or not).

 

But that is the whole point, that you are giving people an option, you are not forcing anyone into the public plan. If they cannot afford the private insurance, they will opt for the cut rate kind the way people buy the Supermarket brand soup instead of the name brand soup for a few cents less. They know it's not as good but they want the soup and the trade off is better for them.

 

Some other organizations say the public plan will be 20-30% less. I don't see how that is possible but like you say it's impossible to say for sure. If more people go into the public plan because it is so much cheaper, then maybe the private insurers cut their rates or rework their rates with doctors and facilities to get those customers back.

 

What I don't understand is how the opposition says that two things are going to simultaneously happen: The government plan will be a total nightmare AND everyone will flock to the government plan. Why would people opt for alleged crap when it is their health care?

My guess is that many of the Private Insurers would go under. They just can't compete with the Government, it is all about resources.

 

This would be a classic example of the government crowding out the private sector. My guess is that the only private insurers that would stay alive would be the one's that offer premium services. The "unintended consequences" of the government crowding out the private insurers is down right scary. Not only are we talking about a lessening of quality of health insurance, but we really don't know if the government could actually drive down the costs, my guess is that wouldn't be able to, just going on past performance and the their track record. If they did drive down the costs, the cost savings would have to come from somewhere, and since we know that it isn't the private insurers that are one's to blame it would need to come from somewhere else. Doctors? Drug Makers? Hospitals? Beauracratic Red tape? Claims?

 

It would be a shame that the Private Insurers would be the one that would have to suffer, considering that it isn't the source of the problem.

 

If you are going to fix the problem, you tackle it at the core.

 

I agree with LA Billz, we need more effective tort reform. This is clearly where the problem lies.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree with LA Billz, we need more effective tort reform. This is clearly where the problem lies.

I'm personally in favor of tort reform, although it hasn't really worked the way it was expected to so far, in CA or TX or FLA or any of the other places that did it.

 

The post office example that Obama used was actually a very good one. UPS and FedEx do very well competing against a totally government run plan by providing a little better service for a little more money.