The Public Option WORKS in Tenessee.

http://www.jamesreport.com/articles_details.php?The-Magic-of-TennCare-Public-Option-Insurance-275



Here is the Cover Tennessee website:
http://www.covertn.gov/web/cover_tn.html

And here is a UT poll on satisfaction of TennCare (including Cover Tennessee)
http://www.utk.edu/tntoday/2009/08/24/ut-study-satisfaction-with-tenncare-remains-high-number-of-uninsured-children-declines/



So, if those who "never got around to it" and those who "don't think they need it" were mandated to get insurance, 98% of TN's population would be insured. Thanks to a DEM Governor who gave us, among other things, a Public Option.

*emphasis added in quotations.

"private health insurance companies provide the coverage for TennCare, TennKids and Cover Tennessee."

and the work is simply contracted out, just like a lot of government programs. Regardless, it works. And it proves that a Public Option on a national scale able to take advantage of economy of scale would work, also.

Your third link indicates that:

The report also looks at why people don’t have insurance. In 2009, as in past years, “can’t afford it” remains the primary reason.

That sentence is followed by the one you bolded about the 3% and the 5% . . . it rather suggests that if those percentages come from a survey of 100% of the people who do not have insurance, than the PRIMARY reason that 92% of those don't have it is because they can't afford it.

I think you need to revisit your maths - mandating insurance to people who don't have it because they can't afford it isn't going to insure 98% of the population in TN . . . it will apparently put 92% of the currently uninsured on the wrong side of a new law, because they can't afford it.

afford it" is the #1 reason among the still uninsured, and you are probably correct.

However, I do support a mandate which is why I supported Edwards' plan in the early primaries over Obama's. I personally don't believe you can acheive universality without a mandate. And if you have everyone participating, that means more revenue which will lower costs. A privately run company would just keep those profits, but one controlled by the government would be required to lower premiums and make them more affordable. Plus, a mandate would come with subsidies as well as exemptions. As for those who don't feel they need it, when accidents or unexpected events occur they won't be forced to default on their health care costs which currently helps drive up the costs.

Regardless, the TN model does show that the Public Option works even without a mandate.

and a democrat.

One would think if you were looking to implement a national public option this particular Governor would be a possible choice for HHS.

eventually, of course, Obama settled on Sebelius.

I'm just so glad we grabbed the most promising politician who could run in a red state and put her in charge of the most controversial intiative in the Administration's platform.

TennCare. He did have to make deep cuts at first, because of the mess the previous Republican admin had left him (sound familiar?). But he was able to eventually reform the program and turn it into a success.

They do good things, but they can be a little bit stupid and counter productive at times.

I'm going to read up on that program. Might even get somewhere with reps. since we're talking Tennessee :)

in a RED state after reforming health care. Maybe this is what the Republicans are REALLY worried about!

I know that election result is pretty dramatic.

Why hasn't the national democratic party jumped on to this plan?

Republicans really just couldn't get their shit together in that election. I'm sure he would've been re-elected regardless but his win in every county isn't entirely because of his popularity.

I have a couple of friends who are conservative right wing Republicans. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the whole bit. But when they were living in Tennessee, and the husband couldn't afford insurance even though he's a lawyer, because of previous heart attacks, and his wife's health problems, they were covered by TennCare. They didn't mind being in that program even though they are conservative right wingers. It makes me wonder just how many right wingers would really forego any benefits they could get from government programs.

Mandated private insurance works fine in the Netherlands because the government dictates the allowable range of prices. They pay about 100 euros/month. NO co-pays or deductibles. NO age rating.

should not have been. The vetting process was severly flawed and many people on TennCare roles weren't even living in TN. All you needed was a PO Box #. Others had other options available to them, but chose to be on TennCare because it was a "Cadillac" plan that they could get on the cheap - even though they could afford private plans.

I also remember seeing video of Bredesen in the TennCare call center actually taking calls to get a first-hand appraisal. It was amusing to see him answer the phone and say "This is Phil, may I help you?". The first thing he said about his experience was that it was obvious that these people could not do their jobs with the outdated equipment they were using and a lot of long-term cost saving would result from getting them the equipment they needed.

Yes, there is no doubt that some of the people cut from TennCare roles in the beginning probably did need to be on it. However, as I said before Bredesen inherited an absolute mess from his Republican predecessor (sound familiar). Increasing tax revenue was not an option as his predecessor discovered. Therefore, he had to take drastic action. As a result, he was able to reform the system and eventually add programs that would better serve all.