Comments on: Insurance Companies Admit: Public Would Like Public Option http://theparagraph.com/2009/07/insurance-companies-admit-public-would-like-public-option/ Terse news, history and science. Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:44:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Quinn Hungeski http://theparagraph.com/2009/07/insurance-companies-admit-public-would-like-public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-25197 Quinn Hungeski Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:09:59 +0000 http://theparagraph.com/?p=423#comment-25197 Terro - I think a worker would have a decent choice because all the plans in the insurance exchange would have to meet a minimum standard of coverage. I don't think we need a lot of choices in insurance anyway -- we just need to be covered for medical services when we need them. Health care is a human right and our system of for-profit insurance has left millions without it, and is the major cause of bankruptcy. I think it's clear that we need major reform. Health care is one of the best things for us to spend money on -- a healthier population makes a for stronger nation. As for getting best value for the money -- the cost of the insurance exchange-type system would be much less with a public option than with only private options (CBO). (The least costly system would be Medicare-for-all, but that's off the table.) I think that without the public option, insurance companies would happily continue setting prices too high and ever-higher. Terro –

I think a worker would have a decent choice because all the plans in the insurance exchange would have to meet a minimum standard of coverage. I don’t think we need a lot of choices in insurance anyway — we just need to be covered for medical services when we need them.

Health care is a human right and our system of for-profit insurance has left millions without it, and is the major cause of bankruptcy. I think it’s clear that we need major reform.

Health care is one of the best things for us to spend money on — a healthier population makes a for stronger nation. As for getting best value for the money — the cost of the insurance exchange-type system would be much less with a public option than with only private options (CBO). (The least costly system would be Medicare-for-all, but that’s off the table.) I think that without the public option, insurance companies would happily continue setting prices too high and ever-higher.

]]> By: Terro http://theparagraph.com/2009/07/insurance-companies-admit-public-would-like-public-option/comment-page-1/#comment-25195 Terro Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:42:58 +0000 http://theparagraph.com/?p=423#comment-25195 Your logic is assailable. The worker would not be in a position to make a decent choice under the Obama plan because the Obama plan (OK, I realize Obama doesn't have a plan, but under the House plan...) the individual worker is at a disadvantage. He cannot 1. receive a tax credit for the cost of his health insurance, 2. He is limited in choice to plans approved within his state; he cannot buy across state lines, and 3. He is in a take it or leave it position... he cannot opt out of items in the plan that he does not want and that may add greatly to its cost. In other words he cannot purchase the features and only the features he needs. If workers could purchase insurance across state lines and receive a tax credit for its cost, they would have many more attractive options... and if tort reform were introduced to reduce the cost of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance, they'd very likely be able to find affordable and quite adequate insurance to meet their differing situations. If instead a worker is thrown into a public system, it's catch as catch can, and as a public plan is tagged at a $1.3 trillion cost (White House figures) added to an already existing deficit of $7.1 trillion (CBO figures), there's not going to be much to catch. Your logic is assailable. The worker would not be in a position to make a decent choice under the Obama plan because the Obama plan (OK, I realize Obama doesn’t have a plan, but under the House plan…) the individual worker is at a disadvantage. He cannot 1. receive a tax credit for the cost of his health insurance, 2. He is limited in choice to plans approved within his state; he cannot buy across state lines, and 3. He is in a take it or leave it position… he cannot opt out of items in the plan that he does not want and that may add greatly to its cost. In other words he cannot purchase the features and only the features he needs.

If workers could purchase insurance across state lines and receive a tax credit for its cost, they would have many more attractive options… and if tort reform were introduced to reduce the cost of defensive medicine and malpractice insurance, they’d very likely be able to find affordable and quite adequate insurance to meet their differing situations.

If instead a worker is thrown into a public system, it’s catch as catch can, and as a public plan is tagged at a $1.3 trillion cost (White House figures) added to an already existing deficit of $7.1 trillion (CBO figures), there’s not going to be much to catch.

]]>