# Public option vs Lifting State mandates.



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ok.....I have asked these questions time and time again.

1. Why or how will the Public option create more competition than lifting or reconfiguring state mandates?

2. What would be more cost effective Public option or lifting state mandates for the USA?

PLEASE ANSWER these two questions. Because no elected official I have talked with can answer these.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

They don't answer not because they don't have one, they don't answer because they don't want you to know why they are doing it. It isn't to improve our health care, it's to take over 1/6 of the economy. 
I think they see the profit that insurance companies are making and it looks like a ripe plume to them. If they can't tax you because you will get ticked they will drive private insurance into the dirt. Then they will push your government insurance premiums through the roof and cut your benefits. Big profit in that and those dollars spend just as well as tax dollars. 
It's simple, politicians can't stand to see that money go into private hands.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

They don't answer, because you wouldn't like the answer... They're politicians.

It would create more competition in that it would add a new competitor. Albeit one with no reason to try to earn a profit, and massive economies of scale. Compared to lifting the state mandates, it probably wouldn't create more.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive, either. As long as the feds mandate minimum coverage that is equal to that of the public option, I'd say go for it! If the private sector is so efficient, they shouldn't have trouble competing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It would create more competition in that it would add a new competitor. Albeit one with no reason to try to earn a profit, and massive economies of scale. Compared to lifting the state mandates, it probably wouldn't create more.


With the addition of just one company. While lifting state mandates would create competition with numerous companies.

This is why I say....which one would not cost the tax payers any money? The public option would cost tax payers trillions.



> The ideas are not mutually exclusive, either. As long as the feds mandate minimum coverage that is equal to that of the public option, I'd say go for it! If the private sector is so efficient, they shouldn't have trouble competing.


If you don't think if a company is making record profits (like everyone says insurance companies are).....why wouldn't they want to expand and make even more.

What you said about making a federal mandate that XYZ needs to be covered then let it go from there is exactly what I am talking about.

See the problem with the state mandates is that one state requires XYZ another state requires XYZAB, then a following state requires ABCXY. You see no uniformity. See some companies have a great rate for XXY because that is what they have negotiated. But can't compete with ABC. You see my point.

Now with the so called public option. The goverment can set prices for everything. It will cause some insurance companies to go bankrupt then that will force anyone who was with a bankrupt company into the public option but they don't want you to know that. They still say you can keep your coverage......yeah right.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> It will cause some insurance companies to go bankrupt then that will force anyone who was with a bankrupt company into the public option but they don't want you to know that


It may cause some to go bankrupt. That's fine by me. Where does it say that you would then have to switch to the public plan? There's no reason why you couldn't go to one of the other private plans that runs their business better.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It may cause some to go bankrupt. That's fine by me. Where does it say that you would then have to switch to the public plan?


So the public plan would cause companies to go bankrupt to create "more" competition? So less insurance companies makes more competition? So with states that only has one or two companies and the federal option makes one go bankrupt that will create more competition in that state?

You are correct you can go to another carrier.....but what if you have pre-existing conditions such as diabeties, heart problems, asthma, etc? You will be forced into the public option.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Competition is a means to an end. The end being that insurance is provided for the lowest cost possible. Ultimately, I don't care how much competition there is if the coverage is being provided at the lowest cost.

Both of the bills that would create the public option would also eliminate preexisting conditions. At this point, that's just about the only thing that looks like a sure thing. The insurance lobby wants it in the worst way.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Competition is a means to an end. The end being that insurance is provided for the lowest cost possible. Ultimately, I don't care how much competition there is if the coverage is being provided at the lowest cost.


Who will keep the goverment in Check on pricing once all competition is gone?

So you are saying you don't want Private Insurance at all and just want Socialized medicine.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Hopefully, somebody cleans Uncle Sam's clock. That would be my ultimate wish. If it doesn't go down like that, that's what we have elected representatives for. They make lots of tweaks in countries with single-payer systems.

There's a HUGE difference between "Socialized Medicine" and a single-payer system. I'm cool with the government being my insurance provider. I'm not so cool with them owning the hospital.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

```
There's a HUGE difference between "Socialized Medicine" and a single-payer system. I'm cool with the government being my insurance provider. I'm not so cool with them owning the hospital.
```
So when the goverment can change your insurance coverage/policy when ever they vote or someone on a committee see's political gain. Because in the private insurance sector the goverment is the watch dog so they can't just "change the policy" as they see fit. They are contractually bond to the coverage you signed up for.

Your coverage could change with every election.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I have no more say in how my policy is worded now than I would if I had to call my rep. I can't even threaten to go elsewhere, because my employer, like most employers only cares about providing a decent plan at the best cost.

If the government were to change the policy too much, they would definitely be leaving the door open for private companies to provide the additional coverage.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the thing.....your policy may change if you change companies. But if you are paying for XZY coverage you are covered for XYZ. Because that is the contract you signed or your employer has signed.

Now if you are in a public option and no other options are available and it is the goverment that is the only option. They can change it anytime with a vote.

Insurance company's can't. Even if the board of directors for a company wants to change its coverages from XYZ to XY. They are still bound to cover you for XYZ because you signed and paid for it and are paying for it. An insurance policy is a contract a legal binding contract.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The US government has to abide by contracts, just like anyone.

How is it going to change? The same people who are covered by the plan would be the ones voting for the representatives. It's not as if Medicare's coverage changes drastically.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

OmegaX ever heard of Social Security and Medicare? You are so far out in left field in grasping anything regarding this topic it is laughable!!!!!

Proponents of PO HC keep saying it will not affect anyones private insurance,it will lower costs, etc... But the CBO, and GAO both have proven that this is not accurate, and will lead to higher costs unless benefits are cut.

Now if I as the person want to save money and buy a stripped down plan for HC, that is fine. The Gov because it cannot efficiently deliver services will face two choices increase costs for premiums e.g. taxes or cut costs, e.g. limit services or put max benefits in place for certain services.

You address those two issues with facts and a plan then come talk!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> How is it going to change? The same people who are covered by the plan would be the ones voting for the representatives. It's not as if Medicare's coverage changes drasticall


But they are kept in check by private companies. You see check and balance.

Here is the thing about you voting for your reps...... some states have more and in senate you only have 2 out of 100. So people from the west, east, midwest, etc have just as much control as you. Where now you are in control of who you want as a provider and what exactly you want covered.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Medicare is as close to a captive consumer base as you're going to get in the US. They're older, and many have preexisting conditions. Private insurance would be prohibitively expensive for almost all of them. Plus, it's impossible to compete with free. There is no competition to Medicare, and yet it doesn't change by the election cycle.

Hey... I've had fun with this! I need to take off though. I'll pop back on later. Take care!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

hey....good conversation. I have got to run too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There is no competition to Medicare, and yet it doesn't change by the election cycle.


That's not true. At this very moment Obama has talked about cutting $500 million from the budget for Medicare or Medicaid I forget which.



> There's no reason why you couldn't go to one of the other private plans that runs their business better.


Unless they changed things that's not true. It was set up so that if you left a private plan your only choice was the public plan. As more and more people get angry about this plan they hide more and deny more. Most of the misinformation is coming from proponents of the plan.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

But we need social justice for all Plainsman!!!! Come on don't you have a heart!!!!!!!!! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> But we need social justice for all Plainsman!!!! Come on don't you have a heart!!!!!!!!! :beer:


 :thumb:

You know what they say. If your 20 years old and conservative you don't have a heart, but if your 40 years old and liberal you don't have a brain. 

Justice would mean people get what they deserve. Don't work and you can starve. However, just about everyone is willing to help a starving man who can't work. On the other hand liberals will whine, we need to help people and you conservatives are heartless. Who is the more heartless, the conservative that wants to keep what he has earned, or the liberal who wants to keep what the conservative has earned?

Thanks for the chance Ron.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Yeah my Dad was right all those years ago as well! I guess I was heartless, as a youth!!!!!!!

Nobody in Congress has addressed anything at all about rising costs. OmegaX and Ryan somehow seem to think that because NObama says so it will work!! None of the accounting offices that have scored the current plan show it costing less,lowering costs or increasing services. It has the opposite affect.

The same accounting offices cautioned against the stimulus saying that doing nothing was better than what was proposed, because it grew Gov and we cannot sustain the Gov we currently have.

Just some advice guys put on pants, take off the diaper and spit out the nipple! Do something for yourselves instead of looking to the Gov to do it for you with somebody else's money!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Just some advice guys put on pants, take off the diaper and spit out the nipple! Do something for yourselves instead of looking to the Gov to do it for you with somebody else's money!!!!!!!!


Ron, some people just don't understand that people who are doing ok have worked 30, 40, 50 years for that money. They may have worked one or two years and they think they should be entitled to the same things you and I have. 
The Thrivent financial advisor was at our house one evening. She said we were doing everything right, but should add a Roth savings account. I asked her what kind of jobs some of these 25 to 30 year old people had. I said I drive by and they have a new house, a suburban, a new boat, two kids etc. She said ya, and it's the last new suburban, last new boat, etc and when they loose their house because they are overextended they will go on welfare. These are the same people that want the government to take care of them now.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Ron, what part of my conversation with Chuck suggests that I'm looking for a handout? I couldn't have laid it out any clearer that my only interest is providing coverage at the lowest cost possible.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Lowest cost to whom? Everyone or just those whom Nobama or you deem worthy?

Because in no way shape or form has any of the proposals presented a plan that will lower costs! They shift who is paying the costs, but not lowering costs!!!!!!

It is that frigging simple!!!!!!!!!!

All the talk of creating competition with a PO is a farce! CAO,GAO, and even the Dem's who are concerned about the rising debt acknowledge that!

So let's have a debate on merit! Current path we are on shows increases in health insurance premiums without a change in how people can purchase insurance(e.g.buying the coverage you want and being able to shop it around, which means the elimination of mandates). It does not matter if it is Gov sponsored or private carrier.

Next is tort reform, none listed or proposed by any of the current plans being offered. A direct contributor to cost increases for service and also to the lowering of available services to people across this nation. Meaning that GP are going by the wayside. Doctors are from strickly a financial position forced to chose to specialize.

Then there is the Gov involvement itself. They are the arbitrator in setting reimbursement and the private insurance companies follow them. Having the schedule precludes the need for hospitals and insurance companies from having to negotiate pricing. It also causes insurance companies not to cover non standard treatments because the Gov does not pay for them so they do not!!!!!! If I can buy a policy that covers experimental treatment for cancer vs one that would not, I get to make the choice. Now the Gov dictates that!!!!!

Then there is the issue of efficiency in the delivery of services. I have pointed to the MN Q project for state workers as a plan that is showing great success and keeping costs down. But none of that is in the mix!!!!!!!

So OmegaX you either are out of your depth in discussing this or are solely looking for someone to carry your water for you!!!!!!!!

You let us know!!!!!!!

The cost of health care is not one single entity affecting rise. It is us the consumer,service providers, drug companies, insurance companies,Fed Gov, state Gov with mandates, etc.. Do you get the picture?

All a PO does is shift who pays for what, and like it or not, it is not a right for me to pay for your insurance anymore than it is for you to pay for mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So my comment on spitting out the nipple and putting on pants fits your arguement completely!!!!


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

You're making a false assumption that the public insurance will be free-for-all. There will be premiums to be paid. You're also ignoring the fact that covering everybody is a forgone conclusion. It's what the insurance industry wants, and nobody's fighting that fight. You're going to wind up complaining about how much they subsidize the care for the poor. Personally, I would rather funnel that money into creating an entity that has overhead like Medicare, and may benefit more than just the poor.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> You're making a false assumption that the public insurance will be free-for-all. *There will be premiums to be paid.* You're also ignoring the fact that covering everybody is a forgone conclusion. It's what the insurance industry wants, and nobody's fighting that fight. You're going to wind up complaining about how much they subsidize the care for the poor. Personally, I would rather funnel that money into creating an entity that has overhead like Medicare, and may benefit more than just the poor.


Here is another angle. Since a public option is not taking into consideration pre-existing conditions. People can buy the minimum from some private company. Then when they get really sick and need the coverage they will jump into the public option. So when this influx of $$$ needed for care is needed. Where will that $$$ come from?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The public option isn't going to be the only "guaranteed-issue" insurer. They're going to couple a mandate to carry coverage with requiring all insurers to go guaranteed-issue. That's most likely going to happen with or without the public option. It's sort of like what's going on in Massachusetts, except that there would be the option to buy into the public plan, in addition to all the private ones.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The public option isn't going to be the only "guaranteed-issue" insurer


I have not seen this....All I have seen is that the public option will be the only one that will not have pre-existing conditions. Others still could use pre-existing conditions for dictating the price. They can still issue but can charge for pre-existing conditions.

So like I stated a person can go out and buy the minimum coverage, very stripped down, high deductibles, etc. Not use it and then drop it and go with the public option once they get really sick. Then they can pay again lower premiums to pay for high expensive medical costs. So where will the goverment get the extra $$$$ needed to pay for these. Not premiums because they are low and not based on "risk" factors.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck he is over his head in understanding the current proposals, his talking points are right out of the DNC websites.

The simple fact remains that PO is a new entitlement! Entitlements garner bigger voting blocks which can be manipulated with promises of free cream and sunshine that others will pay for.

Omegax wants a Suite at the Hilton but only wants to pay for a Motel 6 room!!!!!

Like I told Ryan on the other thread, if you have a flat tire with multiple holes and only patch one you still have a flat tire. You either need to fix all the holes or drive the tire until it is gone.

Omegax cannot grasp that concept, he is sucked into believing that the PO is somehow a magic bullet to use Ryan's term that will bring down premium costs. Here is a hint Omegax, cost of premiums cannot go down even with the Gov option if all other things remain unchanged. The only thing that changes is who is paying for it. Which for some reason you have no problem with another person carrying your water!!!!!


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck,

You're absolutely right that if they were the only guaranteed issue insurer that their costs would be ridiculous. It's like when the state of New York tried to do guaranteed issue without requiring people to carry coverage. People waited until they were sick to get insurance. They wound up repealing that law, because everybody else's premiums were going up. It totally stood to reason.

I remember from the very first public meeting they had with the insurers, hospitals, doctors, patients' rights groups, etc. that the insurance companies' proposal was to do guaranteed-issue as long as there is also a requirement to carry coverage. As far as I know, it's still in there. If it's not, it's a recipe for disaster. You'd be exactly right. However, I'm pretty sure it's still in.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron....

I think the major problem is people don't know how insurance (all forms) really works. The just don't pay what ever price they see fit and that is it. They can't just charge what they see fit. They are very regulated by the goverment in what they charge in premiums.

The premiums are based on risk factors. Example if a company has 500 - 30 year old males insured and it will cost the company $1 million in payouts (health care, billing, staffing, agents, etc) they will charge it accordingly like $2000 a year. Now in that year those 500 - 30 year old males only costs them $900,000 they made profit in that category. But the figures for the nation still show that 500- 30 year old males will still cost them $1 million a year. So the premium stays the same. But if costs goes up then those 500 - 30 year old males premiums will go up.

So with out cutting costs premiums will keep rising. Adding another insurance company (public option) won't do a darn thing.

In the Health Insurance.....companies pay out what medicare dictates and negotiate from there if service is more than what medicare requires.

-------edit-------

Now think of this.....when you get sick or need to talk with an agent to go over you coverage....how easy will that be if you have to call the goverment?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I remember from the very first public meeting they had with the insurers, hospitals, doctors, patients' rights groups, etc. that the insurance companies' proposal was to do guaranteed-issue as long as there is also a requirement to carry coverage. As far as I know, it's still in there. If it's not, it's a recipe for disaster. You'd be exactly right. However, I'm pretty sure it's still in.


You are still not getting it. I understand guaranteed coverage. But here is what I am getting at. A public option will turn this country into this......Healthy people will be the only ones with private insurance and sick people will be in the Public option.

Again....A person is healthy. Goes to the private sector and gets insurance. They get sick....premiums will go up. They move to public option and will not have to pay inflated premiums. So where is the $$$$ going to come from with that new sick person in the public option? Where is the $$$ going to come from to pay for all the medical costs?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Fair enough...

They also have in there than the only thing that insurance companies are allowed to base prices on is if you're over or under 65 (IIRC). So, the sick people would still be covered at the same rate as the healthy people whether they're on public or private insurance.

EDIT: That's the only reasonable way to level it between the private companies, once you've eliminated preexisting conditions, even without a public plan.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The thing is rates still can go up and down based on risk. If a person gets sick they can change the rate.

But if this bill says they can't do that......then why have the public option?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The public option is the best way they could think of to cut into the profit margins of the insurance companies, without coming right out and saying it. The Swiss banned insurance companies from making a profit... I think that would have cause an unholy crap-storm. It could also, conceivably, have really low administrative overhead and big economies of scale.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people who see it being able to out-compete all private insurers and we get a back-handed way to single-payer (which, admittedly, doesn't scare me).


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people who see it being able to out-compete all private insurers and we get a back-handed way to single-payer (which, admittedly, doesn't scare me).


So now I have questions for you......Do you want higher taxes? Do you want other area's that get federal $$$ to get cut funding to pay for medical coverage? (roads, education, local goverment, federal parks, state parks, SS, etc.)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The public option is the best way they could think of to cut into the profit margins of the insurance companies, without coming right out and saying it.





> we get a back-handed way to single-payer (which, admittedly, doesn't scare me).


Well Karl I think we finally got to the bottom and found the truth.

At lest your a lib that admits they will try for under radar single-payer. Most of the rest know it, but lie to us.

Here is a quote for you. Guess who's it is.



> Democracy is the road to socialism.


another:


> The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

my guess, Baracky-road? :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hunter9494 said:


> my guess, Baracky-road? :lol:


Close, Karl Marx. Real close.


----------

