"competitive" public option

I just listened to Chuck Schumer talk about a "competitive" public option. I'm worried this is round-about-way of saying that the public option would mirror private insurance rates. Since their rates will go up to cover pre-existing conditions and such,it will do little to curb costs. I'm for single payer,but I understand political realities. It's obvious that a public option is all we can hope to get right now. Also,if there is a law requiring all to purchase insurance,with still-rising rates,it's going to piss a lot of people off. This is not government by the people,it is government by corporations. It's not even capitalism,it is cold-blooded,greedy corporatism.

How much cheaper is non-profit insurance?

How much cheaper is it than corporate insurance. About half of the Blues are still non-profit, Kaiser is, I don't know how else.

some hospitals and clinics? That was non-profit health CARE.

I can't recall ever going to a for-profit hospital. My daughter had her children in a for-profit, but she could have gone to the Catholic hospital. All the "Sts" are still Catholic, bunch of Baptist hospitals, Jewish, Lutheran. Then there's the community hospitals and county hospitals, hospitals connected to medical schools. There's lots of non-profit in this country.

I was just asking how much cheaper the OP thinks non-profit health premiums are going to be.

its not like a couple of medical providers are not already using them to reduce their own internal cost

Whether it's called a premium or a tax, it's still going to be there.

My hospital system uses electronic records. They still have their flaws. My old doctor is leaving and my new doctor will not look at my annual blood work-up and just order it so we can hopefully have only one visit. I haven't decided how much of a stink I'm going to make because we only have one clinic and if you make them mad, they classify you as a difficult patient and stop seeing you. So while there are many pros to the system I have, there are a few eyebrow raisers as well.

That is Horrendous

I can attest to the need for Electronically Transfered Medical Records and Test Results

I had my Gallbladder removed several years ago and I got really fed up every time I was sent to a specialist I had to undergo the whole battery of test my personal doctor had ordered and reviewed

BTW: Me and my family have had the same personal doctor for almost 20 years now

I don't like him anyway, but he's not taking new patients. Wouldn't even take our grandchildren. If you want to change doctors, you have to fill out a written request. Last time I wanted to change I got lucky because she retired. I liked the new doctor, but she is going on to study geriatrics. So I was transferred to her new doctor, who has now been assigned to overflow so he won't be my permanent doctor, and he's the one who won't order any tests until he sees me. I'm going to call on Monday and see what they're doing about my old doctor's patients because I need a permanent doctor, or at least what passes for permanent around here. About half of them went to medical school overseas somewhere, Philippines, India, Iran. They do a one year residency somewhere and then often end up here. Our doctors are paid a salary, around $130,00 a year. I think I read somewhere that Oregon non-profit medical services have to see everybody, no denials, in order to retain their non-profit standing. They can still turn you over to collection, although this system has an excellent assistance program.

And it is true they will ban patients. They did it to a friend of ours who was a royal pita. After a couple years he got back in. But he used to have to drive 90 miles to see a doctor.

...$500pm, as long as they get rid of the fucking $5,000 deductible that stands between me and actual Health Care!!

I think that was what Sebelius and Obama were trying to accomplish when they said the public option isn't the essential part of health care reform we need to focus on. Subsidies, annual caps, fair deductibles, there's lots more that people need to know about.

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>

is not going to happen,nor should it. Sliding premiums to aid the low income? Absolutely. Zero premiums for all? No way.

I do not accept your political "reality." The current system is unsustainable, and everyone knows it. Change will come. Let's not settle for a bailout of the insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it.

But if we must compromise, I want a "robust" public option, and by that I mean a plan that is projected to enroll 50+ million Americans within five years. Anything less will lack the bargaining power to drive prices down through negotiation with providers and pharmaceutical companies. Anything less will be unable to "keep the insurance companies honest." Anything less is merely a bail-out of the medical insurance industry that is dying to get 50 million new customers who must buy their products or face a stiff fine.

A "robust" public option is essential.

:dem:

-Laelth

I wasn't asking you to give up on single payer. Keep fighting for it. I was just commenting on what I'm afraid will happen from the things powerful politicians are saying. Thanks for the welcome!