Question about public option

In many discussions I have about the current healthcare bill, the following always comes up (from libs and conservatives both):

"If a public option is available, is there anything to prevent a company from switching to it? And why wouldn't they switch, if the public option is of a decent quality and is more affordable?"

There's a bit of paranoia that companies will rush to the public option en masse, which could mean employees losing their current doctors/choices/etc (of course, they conveniently forget that companies can switch insurance companies every year if they wanted to, which would mean losing options anyway).

How can I, as Rachel would put it, talk them down???

Thanks!

If the public option is 'of a decent quality and more affordable', why should the company not switch to it, and what could be wrong with that? Insurance company opposition to this course is based on their cold knowledge the product they offer is necessarily inferior to a public plan, since their business model requires them to pay out in benefits an ever decreasing portion of the money they take in in premiums. They can only manage this by denying claims, canceling policies when customers actually need them, and raising premiums. Health insurance companies pay out only four fifths of their revenue in benefits. A public plan would pay out all but a trifling percentage of its premium payments in benefits, since it needs neither profit nor the administrative staff required for denying claims and canceling policies. This built in advantage guarantees a public plan will provide better service at lower cost.

...and only fuels the paranoia.

I'm all for a public option. Hell, single-payer would be easier to implement and so much better, but I think even Obama has made it clear that single payer ain't about to happen.

But let's stick with the public option for now. Obama/Dems have been very clear about the fact that the public option will be competitive and won't affect the insurance industry and/or people's current choices. But it seems that this is not the case - the public option would be way too attractive to pass up on. It makes sense for the company to do the switch. So yes, why not?

Now, I'm fine with that. But I can also see how people don't believe Obama/Dems on this, and they feel that a mass exodus to a public option is basically a govt takeover of healthcare.

Maybe there should be an income limit for which the public option is accessible? e.g. you earn more than $X million, then you can't access public option but have to get a private plan. Or is that just a stupid idea?

Thanks again for the response!

the quality price matrix indicates that superior value is being offered.

The company is not directly benefiting from any health plan. It's the employees who get some benefit on the personal side of their lives.

So for the company, they just want to give some health plan to their employees. So even if the public option doesn't provide superior value, it probably won't matter to them.

My employer has already said that they will be cancelling ALL company insurance plans when the public option is passed.

Not too bad a thing IMO. But the discussion by Obama/Dems on this matter is not very frank and truthful.

I know Obama has said that UPS and FedEx thrive in the presence of the post office. But that's where the company sees a superior value (pickups, dropoffs, tracking, group discounts, eservices way before USPS got them, etc).

Unless employees threaten to quit in large numbers (which they probably won't), employers see no reason in paying for a private plan.

These people are admitting the public option is superior to the private policies. This means that the private system is inferior. Therefore, what is the problem with 'a government take-over of health care'? Do they imagine there is no bureaucracy in a health insurance company? Do they imagine private bureaucracies are more responsive to customers? Why should they be? The customer, after all, has no means of exerting control over the management of a private bureaucracy, while they do at least have elected representatives they can appeal to if they feel ill-used by a government bureaucrat. Do they imagine a government program would be inefficient? Private insurance companies are efficient at one thing and one thing only, extracting profit and salary from their revenue streams; when it comes to paying claims, they are not efficient at all. Do they imagine there will be rationing of care? There already is rationing of care, on the basis of cost to the customer, and what serves the profit interest of the insurance companies: millions of people already go without needed care because of the rationing system currently in place. Fear of 'a government take-over of health care' is simply nonesense; that is essentially how every industrialized country in the world handles the matter, and the outcomes, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, etc., generally run far better when this is how the matter is handled. The costs are also lower. The fear is wholly irrational, and sometimes, people simply have to be confronted with the fact that they are being foolish.

Everything you say is true. The disappearance of the insurance industry would be a pretty good thing in most respects.

But I can also see how people see an exodus to the public option as a govt takeover of sorts. I am ok with that, but I think it needs to be addressed by Obama/Dems in this discussion.

I don't think it's fair to say the plan will be competitive and won't affect current plans/choices, when it's very possible it will.

come up before. I think the key is that the companies can buy any crap policy they want now, or they can decide not to provide insurance at all. Of course, top management always gets the gold plated policies! The key is that the policies all have to meet the same standards for benefits. Congressmen will be under pressure from hospitals and doctors to raise reimbursements and from patients to make sure their doctor will accept the public option. What's the worse that can happen? If everyone picks the public option, doctors and hospitals will be forced to accept those patients or go out of business.

I really can't see how a doctor/hospital would NOT want to accept it. It's virtually guaranteed payment, with very little chance of denial.

I would love it if everyone went to a public option. And I can see why the insurance companies are scared shitless of this eventuality.

But I'd like to see Obama/Dems address this frankly.

Medicare covers 45 million people. The Secretary of Health and Human Services gets paid $196,700 a year to oversee Medicare, among other duties.

Aetna covers about 40 million people and last year paid its head $3 million plus stock options worth another $10 million. Last year Aetna’s profit was $1,384 million.

The last time they defeated national health insurance they told us the private sector could do better. We now have millions more uninsured, millions more bankrupt due to medical bills. They have failed to serve the public while their profits have soared. Their system is cruel and broken. That is the bottom line.

If we choose the best public option, Single Payer - aka Medicare - patients whose companies drop the Pay-or-Die coverage will still be able to choose their own doctors. Medicare/ Single Payer are a MIXTURE of private and public systems. Medical services are privately delivered. Payments and cost controls are publicly administered. Just as Canada and Medicare have been doing for decades.

Are the Canadian and Medicare systems perfect? No. BUT they cover everyone for far less than we pay to have the moral disgrace of leaving 47 million uninsured and millions more bankrupt.

Having truly universal coverage in the U.S. would help our economy compete with other industrialized nations which already do provide medicare to all their citizens. If our businesses didn't have to pay huge sums to private insurers for shoddy policies that don't fully cover their workers, they would be able to lower their prices and be more competitive on the world market. Other businesses who don't have to worry about the international market could put their savings to hiring more workers and thus improve our dismal economy.

"Medicare for All" would help our citizens and our businesses. Let's end the discussion of the fuzzy public option and give people a program that Americans already understand and like.