Reply #8: If you've been following the discussions, one of the major points [View All]

has been all along that private insurance WOULD NOT be able to compete with a public option, particularly one that operates "like" or is "modeled one" Medicare as many of the initial proposals stated.

A REAL public option would be one that is :
*created immediately (in other words not based on some phony "trigger")
*available to large numbers immediately (the uninsured and uninsurable would be a good start)
*Funded by taxpayers (there's a wide range of funding mechanisms available: surtax on the wealthiest, tax on employers, subsidies, etc.)
*Costs additionally held down through small administrative costs (a savings of anywhere from 20-26% from private admin costs)and through negotiation of rates with providers and drug companies (like Medicare*).This is one they hate the most. This is what would create the greatest savings and what the privates say put them at a disadvantage. It WILL mean that if they try to match the costs, they would inevitable have to erode their incredible, unconscionable profits that they derive now mainly through denials.
*Run by it's own board.

Chuck Schumer wants a "level playing field" public option. In other words, one that private insurers COULD compete with. The only way you would get that is if you stripped the public option of all the things that make it a good thing in the first place - like everything I've listed above. What you are left with is some non-profit entity that is called a public option but which essentially runs just like any other non-profit insurance whether it be public or private.


<*oops! medicare DOESN'T negotiate Drug prices in Part D. That should have been our first tip-off as to where this was all heading>