Wow! From DKos - sounds like they're resurrecting the Kerry Plan from 2004 for HCR

*********************************************************************************************************
In a nutshell, it seems to be for allowing people to enroll in "something similar" to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
*********************************************************************************************************
John Kerry's plan back in the day was exactly that and when you think about it, it's a suggestion that could have been introduced and enacted without the hoopla and drama we have over reform now.

Of course, they always have to screw it up with the words "something similar to" instead of just allowing buy-in to an existing system.

("Medicare for All" could be just as simple a solution. Ooops! Doesn't factor in the needs of the for profit campaign donors! What was I thinking?)

Any Fed employees here?

If you go on their website, you click on your state and see what plans are available.

I remember doing that a a while ago when this was first suggested. The plans are a lot less expensive and more comprehensive than what is typically offered in the private sector.

BUT of course this does not address the fundamental flaw that it is STILL more expensive healthcare from private for profit sources compared to the rest of the world.

I see a lot of similarities with the Swiss system, and I see it comes as the competition problem a different way than the public option does.

That's the point of the public option - to force some competition in the health insurance industry to discourage insurers from gouging and denying services. The exchange, which was already in the health care bill in some form, would also do that - all plans in the exchange would be available in the entire nation, have very large risk pools (one of the ways the insurers game the system is to segment up their customers into lots of little risk pools and thus be able to monkey with the actuarial numbers to justify jacking up premiums.) and government officials negotiating prices.

IIRC, the Germans and Swiss have a system that's much like this - private insurers, but with mandatory non-profit basic coverage plans, with rules in place to prevent gaming of the system.

I'll hold off on endorsing this until senators like Sanders endorses this - I imagine the insurers are looking for ways to engineer loopholes...

is that while private insurance providers are involved, they are also non-profit by law, and tightly regulated. In our current corporatist corrupted Congress, that is no more likely to pass than single payer. Which is why a TRUE public option is needed. Let the insurance companies do the stupid shit they have been doing, and let them put themselves out of business in the process, as they lose all their customers to the public option.

The reason Federal employees can have such low rates is that the rest of us make up for them when we buy individual insurance. There's no way to really make the Federal plan and its lower costs apply to everyone, not while everything is private.

How would this plan fit in with the other exchange, based on the MA system, that is already structured in the current bills?

The federal government pays about 72% of the premium. So, a $233/month plan would cost about $1000 for a non-employee. I'm a federal employee, but don't use the medical benefit as my husband's plan through his company is better and less expensive.

That would mean making the rest of our costs higher.

my father was a retired civil service employee and had FEHB. I thought it sucked until I started paying attention to what I was getting, particularly after leaving my job at a major defense contractor and going to work for a more, er, civilian firm.

FEHB isn't great, but it's better than what most people have, I think. Also, if the public option is basically letting people buy into what congress critters get, that's a good thing. It should be the same system - that would ensure it's managed for the benefit of the insured.

I don't really see how this is anything "new"

The article is a little misleading. The "exchange" already is modeled on the FEHBP.

What I think the compromise is would be to allow the administrator of the exchange to directly set rates for a standard basic plan which all insurers would have to offer as their base.

That actually could be very good if it is what I think it is. But the devil is in the details.

Having a base plan that is strongly price (and service) controlled is what some of the European countries do (eg Switzerland which does not have a public plan per se).

According to the diary linked to. Lincoln usually likes crap and opposes good things.

nt

100-200 extra dollars in 2016 savings are not something to be really excited about. The increases in those 7 years will eat that up and then some. We spend twice as much as France and every big European country out there in health care. Let's be ambitious.

would replace it with non-profits. My only question is: where are these non-profits? They don't really exist, do they?

But it could be a compromise that works. I await the analyses of the professional policy wonks.