The CBO found that a public option based on Medicare would reduce the deficit by $158 billion through reduced spending and increased revenue.
The reason a public option would be so effective at reducing the deficit is that it would significantly lower premiums for millions of regular Americans and businesses. This would, in turn, reduce the amount of subsidies the government would need to spend to make insurance “affordable.” From the CBO:
"In the Congressional Budget Office’s estimation, premiums for the public plan would be between 7 percent and 8 percent lower, on average, during the 2016–2023 period than premiums for private plans offered in the exchanges—mainly because the public plan’s payment rates for providers would generally be lower than those of private plans. In addition, the public plan would be likely to have lower administrative costs than private plans. However, CBO expects that the public plan would be less inclined than private plans to use benefit management techniques (such as narrow provider networks, utilization review, and prior-approval requirements) to control spending. [...]
One rationale for adding a public plan to the exchanges is that it would help reduce premiums for some individuals, families, and employers who would buy insurance through the exchanges but would not qualify for subsidies. Premiums would be reduced both because the public plan would be one of the lowest-cost plans available in many areas and because adding a low-cost option would increase the competitive pressure on private plans,leading them to decrease their premiums."
A public option would inherently make insurance cheaper for people, and the government could use the deficit reductions to pay for increased exchange subsidies which would bring down what regular people need to pay even further.
I think with the recent debacle demonstrated by the problems with the website and the fact that the insurance companies clearly stabbed the President in the back, indicates that the government needs to take some drastic measures to draw a line in the sand and offer an affordable health care plan that would force the insurance companies to stop playing games and start competing on a more level playing field.
Of course this is EXACTLY what the Right Wing has feared all along. Which of course only makes it that much better of an idea.
Besides aren't THEY the ones always complaining about the deficit?
A great chess player always has the endgame in mind.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post. I have been bordering on obsession, thinking about this topic for the last few weeks.
ReplyDeleteBack when the ACA was being negotiated, I was in the UK talking with my BIL, who is the conservative in the family. That is conservative in a British sort of way, in other words, one who believes a government has responsibilities for the health and education of the populace. When I told him, the idea of a public option had been dropped, he was incredulous.
I can hear him now, "How the hell do they think this is going to work without a public option? How do they plan to control the insurance companies?"
Yep.
A friend has battled with the health insurance industry for a long time (big bucks, liver transplant), and usually won. He refuses to die or quit. He says eliminate the insurance companies from the equation and provide health care through the government, similar to Medicare. He was very disappointed when Hillary didn’t go that route. People can buy supplemental insurance if they like to gamble, but there’s a big risk of being denied after paying for golden insurance, it happened to him.
ReplyDeleteI love my Medicare! However, it's the supplemental and Part D that are hard to navigate because of insurance companies and their fine print. In this case, I think 'One Size Fits All'.
ReplyDeleteIf you value the importance of a free market, then you should support a public option.
ReplyDeleteA free market can not function properly when one party (the buyer) is often forced to act under duress.
Basic health insurance is arithmetic. No one is inventing or producing anything other than an algorithm for applying actuarial information.
The industry should be regulated like public utilities with a reasonable/modest and exceptionally safe rate of return for investors.
So true!
DeleteI've had to stop reading about it for a bit as I was just getting loonier than a loon (basically all torqued up inside about the ridiculousness of the whole thing). And honestly I was afraid to bring it up lest any lurking Republicans take it as an invitation to pounce on me and my steadfast belief in our Commander-in-Chief.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, because I'm clueless right now, is the public option an option? Is it really being considered?
Honestly, that's about the only way this could ever have worked, because otherwise, what's different than the way it was before? Except that now everyone is "required" to have it and will get a teeny, weeny fine if they don't. Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance and taking up space, but I'm baffled by it all.
Most civilized countries provide universal health care for their citizens. The United States of America is the exception. Why?
ReplyDelete...because we are greedy capitalists.
DeleteWell, it seems the word is slowly getting out how the insurance companies with the aid of the GOP have totally screwed all of this up. Obama is blamed for everything....it keeps getting more absurd. He gave them the private marketplace, state control...and what did they do? The GOP states refused to set them up and then refused more funds to allow the admin to pick up their slack, genius! Now they have the balls (Chuck Todd) to demand an apology for a statement never meant to guarantee an insurance policy wouldn't be cancelled...not because of the ACA. The insurance companies have used the ACA to screw the public as they always have, this time using the prez as their scapegoat. This time Fox has a new buddy for misinformation and lying.....the regular media, who would have thought they could go lower than they already have, and Clinton to boot!!!! We need Obama on prime time telling people exactly what has happened..once and for all. The fact you even hear the mention of Iraq or Katrina in the same breath as the ACA turns my stomach...are they all crazy?
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, I was FOR single payer from the beginning, but this DID give me a bit of hope
Deletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/17/1255754/-President-calls-GOP-and-insurance-companies-bluff?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campai
When universal healthcare was first instituted in Canada (first in Saskatchewan, then Alberta, then the rest of the country) it was the doctors who were dead set against it. In the U.S., it's the insurance, hospital and pharma lobbies, accompanied by the Chamber of Commerce, not to mention the GOP Obama-haters.
ReplyDeleteBut as the U.S. becomes more and more progressive (thanks to all the young'uns who aren't prepared to put up with the party of old white men) and Senators like Warren and Sanders, I'd say universal healthcare will come to pass within the next 10-15 years. I'm counting on Vermont's venture into universal healthcare to be a success, and set an example for other states to follow. The U.S. in general does not like to look outside its borders for system improvements, so perhaps a state within the U.S. will lead the way. At any rate, fingers crossed for you guys!
Here's my problem. First, the verbage in the ACA bill showed that most current (individual and group) plans would cancel. This is because those policies don't meet the guidelines of the ACA. Yes, since policies for
ReplyDeletemen didn't include maternity, and policies for women didn't include prostate care, they are crappy policies and those people need the one size fits all coverage that ACA can bring. The deductibles are so high, that the lower class might as well not have any, except a catastrophe plan (that doesn't meet the standards, anyway!)
Second, this bill was the result of slight of hand, therefore illegal. The House approved a bill named Affordable Care Act. The Senate stripped it, added the current language, and rather than blue slip it back to the House, as is required, they pretended that it was the same. Since Dems controlled both, they didn't argue, and the President signed it. Look it up.
Third, and pay attention, I don't think this president is stupid. I feel that this was planned, possibly so that we could go to a single payer system. Sorry, but I already don't trust the government, why would anyone want them to control our most prized possession(our health) ?!? If the Republicans get back into "power", do you really want them knowing, and controlling that aspect of your life???. Our country is set up so that stupid people can make stupid choices. Not so that some who purport to know better, can force them into something. We should have the right to chose. Period. When you take that away, the next 'official' will go the next step. This is a slippery slope. If people want single payer, than it should go to the people. The Congress should vote on it. Not make something so bad, that the only way to fix it is to go that route.
just in case anyone wants to use this argument, the Republicans presented MANY bills, before during and after, that never saw the light of day. Thanks, Pelosi.
If the object is to reduce the deficit, then the government should mandate higher wages. The more people make, the less healthcare subsidies they would have to pay.
ReplyDeleteIf you mandate too much, you force small business out. Then the large businesses, who can afford it, will be the only ones out there. Sorry, but I like more variety than walmart!
ReplyDeleteOn those lines, why did the President, by executive order, waive the business mandate of the ACA for a year, but only Congress can authorize changes, or delay to the individual (per Pres. speech) Sorry, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander! ALL of the waivers should have gone through Congress. THAT, ladies and gentlemen (and everyone in between) is how a law SHOULD be changed... The constitution was written that way by design!! NOT over 1000 waivers exec signed so that the law only applies to some, but not all, and not evenly... ever hear of segregation? The idea that Dems had that separate but equal was okay? Yahoo, not so much.
Dumbass!
Darn phone! Supposed to say, 'ya, not so much'!
ReplyDelete