Can a "public option" that nobody qualifies for have any effect on insurers?

[Armstead]

So if maybe 10 percent of the population might possibly be eligible to maybe sign up for something called a "public option."

How the hell can that be considered "competition" that will keep Big Insurers honest?

Do you really think they will give a shit and suddenly control their prices and treat their customers better because they might possibly lose a small sliver of potential customers?

ESPECIALLY WHEN MOST OF THE POPULATION IS GOING TO BE FORCED BY LAW TO BUY THEIR F***ING INSURANCE ANYWAY???!!!


:banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr:


This defies the logic and spirit of "reform." What the hell are Obama and these Congressional Democrats thinking anyway?

[T Wolf]

1. They are thinking about their next campaign and how to keep the corporate dollars flowing in. nt

[Armstead]

4. Tghey'd better start thinking about losing voters -- because they will

They will lose the enthusiasm and possibly votes of supporters of real health care reform.

They will also lose "swing" voters who suddenly get slapped with mandates to buy insurance.

[avaistheone1]

7. Other than the corporations, who is interested in reelecting politicians who are voting against

our most critical health care needs?

[Armstead]

15. Teabaggers and other conservative nitwits

[avaistheone1]

16. They are a definite minority.

[Armstead]

17. I agree...But they are helping to steer this whole issue in a disproportunate way

[andym]

24. I doubt it-- the insurers will give money to their republican opponents

so they can strip out the things they don't like--

any public option at all (they don't even want the whiff of any competitor, even if hamstrung)
the loss of their anti-trust exemption.

[villager]

2. The un-reccers got here first, naturally. Being an insurance company patsy is a.o.k. with them

As long as we can label it "A DEMOCRATIC VICTORY!"

Who cares what the effects of the "reform" actually are?

[chimpymustgo]

6. Hasn't DU become a strange place lately - supporting the health insurance vampires.

Anything from staring at the reality of our elected government (and saviors).

[Armstead]

11. Can 't deviate from the Centrist Party line.

You expected Change you could believe in? heh.

[rudy23]

14. Be careful about speaking too much truth.

The unreccing crew doesn't like that too much.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. No, people that actually read the bill and have a clue got here first. (nt)

[Eric J in MN]

3. The number eligible expands over the years in House bill.

=========
The House bill would expand access to the new health insurance exchange fairly rapidly. In year one, 2013, only individuals without employer provided insurance and the “smallest” employers (25 or fewer employees) would have access to the exchange. In year two, 2014, “smaller” employers (50 or fewer employees) could access the exchange. By year three, 2015, all “small” employers (100 or fewer employees) would gain access to the exchange, and the exchange Commissioner could permit larger employers (greater than 100 employees) to be eligible for the exchange.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/29/the-ever-expanding-exchange-and-how-everyone-could-get-the-choice-of-the-public-option/

=========

[Armstead]

9. I hope that happens at least but I'm very dubious

That'll probably become so watered down by the Senate it will disappear.

If my prediction and suspicions are wrong, I'll happily eat some crow.

[tnlefty]

5. Their stocks are going up

isn't that what matters? :sarcasm: if really needed

[Cant trust em]

8. Actually I thought heath care stocks took some hits in the last few weeks. nt

[tnlefty]

10. They are rising today.

:shrug:

[DrToast]

21. Everything is going up today. (nt)

[tnlefty]

38. Well, good then we can all be happy and dance around

a flagpole.:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[skipos]

34. Where were there stocks in late 2007 early 2008

and why the significant change? I am curious what you think.

[inna]

12. Obama said 5%, not 10%. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with you. nt

[Armstead]

13. Unless its quickly available to anyone it is meaningless as a competative counterweight

[DrToast]

20. No, he didn't

He said 5% were expected to sign up for it. That's what the CBO came up with. It's going to be available to a lot more people than that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Perspective please.

Those who are not eligible to purchase the public option;
a) retirees who already have medicare
b) the poor who have medicaid
c) servicemembers and veterans who have VA benefits
d) employees of large companies who have compliant coverage offered by their employer. (The bill also mandates that large employers provide adequate coverage for employees)

That's what? 70% of the population?

The remaining 30% who are either unemployed, self-employed or work for small companies, will obtain their coverage from the exchange. The cheapest option within that exchange will be the public option. The only reason that not everyone will choose the public option is because the subsidies are set up in such a way that there's no benefit in choosing the cheapest solution.

[Armstead]

19. We'll see when they finish...I honestly HOPE my suspicions are wrong

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. I certainly won't disagree that better solutions are available.

But at the same time, I don't agree that those better solutions are politically possible.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Not to mention that you can't be forced to give up the PO once you have it...

...even if you're going to be the employee of a large company that has compliant coverage. So eventually, that eligibility becomes a lot greater than 30%.

[SpartanDem]

23. The House public option is open to everyone

you might want get your facts straight. Don't like what employer is giving you drop and go to the exchange and get the public option if you want.

CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.—
4 Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such
5 offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange6
participating health benefits plan (other than by rea7
son of being covered by family coverage as a spouse
8 or dependent of the primary insured), the employer
9 shall make a timely contribution to the Health In10
surance Exchange with respect to each such em11
ployee in accordance with section 413.

[andym]

25. That's good news... nt.

[uponit7771]

29. ****GOOD EXPLANATION HERE****

[kestrel91316]

26. I am probably one of the 10% of Americans you consider to be "nobody".

Do you maybe wanna rethink your comment? This bill is probably gonna be a godsend for me and people like me.

[Armstead]

36. It's n ot that you are a nobody -- But the point is that if it is a small share.....

then it won't be enough competition to keep the private insurers honest.

[bvar22]

27. K&R...Up to +4

The "Public Option" that is NOT available to The Public, and even LESS of an option after today.

A handful of crumbs thrown to the peons for distraction while Mega Billions are transfered to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.

The "Thin Sliver" (Obama) has been whittled down even more today.

[ProSense]

28. Evidently, you haven't read

the bill.

[Armstead]

37. We'll see how much hamburger is made of it when merged with senate version

[swilton]

32. BINGO!

:grr: :nuke:

[PolNewf]

33. This meme is Short Sighted

Social Security was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. However, proponents argued that there was in fact an advantage: it would encourage older workers to retire, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938.

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<11> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<12> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<13> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<14> Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.<13> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<15><16> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)">Wikipedia

[juno jones]

35. K&R! n/t

[Vidar]

39. I very much agree. Recommended.

[WinkyDink]

40. So why exactly has the Free Mkt not already resulted in lower prices?

Because it hasn't worked that way since the peasants formed Guilds. Cars are priced similarly, potato chips are priced similarly, books, lawn mowers,....Where has "competition" lowered prices?