At the risk of virtual injury, I say again, the best Public Option is one run by the insurance cos.

No Exclusions, no cancellations, no preexistings, no caps, cheaper price all set by the federal government

But administered under contract by insurance companies who come in with the lowest bid for a five year contract. They compete to cover the 40 Million uninsured and the volume offsets the risk and they be required to leverage technology for both public and private options and because you are leveraging existing insurance infrastructure, the cost to government would be less.


Plans might be a small step down from employee based plans, but the price will be slightly less and will push pricier options down.

Employers would be required to provide coverage or pay a penalty.

Keeps bureaucrats out of the middle, reduces prices and gets everybody covered

Bluntly it is far more important that we insure everyone has access to affordable coverage than it is how it get paid for.

:hide:

private contracts have worked in Iraq haven't we?

The model works for other federal contracts like telecom. Networx contracts are much lowere than private contract telecom costs because of the volumes

Then demand more production from employees on the lower rung and send the extra costs down the line onto the consumer who isn't within the 40mill the govt is now covering because they don't have their own ins.

by insurance companies under contract to the federal government. So is Medicaid and Tricare.

I suppose you think that war is best waged by the lowest bid contractor too.

Someone like, say, Halliburton.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

"Keeps bureaucrats out of the middle"

No, it doesn't. The biggest bureaucrats in the world are working for health insurance companies. I'd much rather have a government bureaucrat making my life or death decision than one who also has a profit motive. But that's just me.

The point is that the govnerment can and often does do a better job in some things than the private sector. Having a profit motive often leads to substandard work (or, in the case of health care, a real motive to deny service).

would any progressive want to privatize that knowing that it will add layers of corporate profit to the process?

Privatization has not benefited Americans in nearly any sector you might pick.... Once you give away the farm, it is gone.

Keep health insurance bureaucrats out of the middle, and dumbasses out of the debate

as David DuKKKe running the NAACP.

I see you got your cheering squad already weighing in.

BTW you will be ice skating in Hell before you see any corporate health insurer or HMO agree to those above conditions you have outlined. It's being tried in the Netherlands and already it's costing too much and people at the bottom of the economic scale are becoming uninsured. We just can't go on repeating mistakes.

I actually want the Single Payer solution but realized even before the electioon that their was no....political appetite for it.


I want the 40M insured as quickly as possible,I want everyone to equal access and I want it to be affordable. How we get there is far less important. Period. Anyone looking to use any government program to exact a pound of flesh as the their primary motivation, is not a progressive. They are no better than the town hall protesters. Al they would seem to care about it is sacrificing the lives and fortunes of million on the altar of self-indulgent outrage.

:sarcasm:

and the administrative costs are over double those of Medicare. The North Carolina public employees health plan if funded by the state and administered by Blue Cross. Since it is group insurance we have no prexisting conditions and we can't be recinded. But it is more expensive than Medicare is for benefits which are not as generous.

that way their cancer stays out of HC?
No I like single payer.

eternally. It's the difference between getting a large, bonus cash payment when you retire or a monthly pension. The pension will keep coming and coming as long as you live. It's the difference between selling your house for cash, or collecting monthly rent instead.

"Recession job losses are adding to the toll. Some economists estimate that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate adds 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.

"The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate," said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. "That's got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late '80s."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=1

Why are we resuscitating an industry that has killed of over a million americans in the last few decades?

They need us way more than we need them. Why aren't we taking advantage of the fact they are losing business and just let them. Giving them a mandate on all of us is insane. Including them as gatekeepers controlling access to healthcare is even more insane.

They are about to shrink down considerably along with the power they wield, how colossally stupid of us not to let them.

I am beyond astounded at the level of abuse people will put up with. It reminds me of the dynamics in an abusive relationship where the abused spouse keeps making excuses and going back for more.

However, whats most likely to produce affordable coverage?

Compare Aetna, Medicare, and the VA. Who has the best results, the best satisfaction, and the lowest cost?

There needs to be a Public Option to provide more choice and to engage the bloated and corrupt private health insurance industry.