"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:
A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.
If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.
Why is it that so few can think this through?
Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron
Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t
essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health
care.
“What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s
“State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential
element.”
Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she
didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing
versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate
Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of
health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with
government funds.
Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering
backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance
system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health
legislation passed.
“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never
have been,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic
negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on “Fox News
Sunday.”
“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,” he
said.
“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,” said Senator
Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American
people “don’t want a government- run program,” Shelby said. Shelby also said
that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government involvement”
would be “a step in the right direction.”