Yglesias is just simply wrong, and I don't think it is dishonest. He truly doesn't understand the bills/proposals.
 

All you have to do is look at the post office. They can barely get something simple, like mail delivery. They have to contract out to FedEx on a regular basis. They also lose billions in the process.

If something as simple as mail delivery can't be done right, how can anybody expect a complicated service like health care to be done right?

Other government created entities, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are their own separate hells and helped contribute to the current financial troubles.

We haven't had a free market health care system for almost half a century, how about going back to it instead of making the current system worse?
 

lol. BM.
 

Bob,

It's simple, really. It's all about competition, and the increasement therewith.

Or something.
 

I detest Yglesias. It is okay to be a fat slob if you want but this pile of flesh has the nerve to make multiple posts whining about the state of food policy aka the government not doing enough to control what people eat. What? take the buttered poptart out of thine own mouth before you remove the cupcake from your brothers. Yglesias is a threat to america, himself and pies left to cool by open windows. He needs to shave to.
 

Bob, good call. If the public option requires no tax money, then how will they insure anyone even if they have pre-existing conditions. If they do, surely premiums would be higher than private plans, which would negate the need for a public option at all. Time for these numskulls to start following their logic through to conclusion, and don't just stop when they feel all warm inside.

ProudProfiteer.com
 

The Blackadder Says:

The plan is that the public option would only get taxpayer-funded subsidies that were available to all insurers (e.g. if another provision in the bill says that the gov will pay for part of your premiums up to a certain amount then the public option is eligible for that, but so is Blue Cross Blue Shield).

The two questions this raises are:

1) Do progressives really expect that to happen?

2) Do progressives really expect that to work?

The answer to each question would seem to be yes (maybe they are lying, who knows). But people I've talked to (who are clear on the no tax-subsidy thing) really do think it will function without special tax advantages and that it will outperform private insurers.
 

The Blackadder Says:

This comment, from the Yglesias thread, sums up my point:

The real benefit of the public option is more subtle though. By demonstrating that the federal government can create and run a health insurance plan that accomodates anybody – not just seniors, poor people and veterans – and do it more cheaply and better than private companies, we threaten the existance of private insurance. Private insurers will be forced to act more efficiently, and health care costs will be more effectively controlled. However, I, for one, don’t think private health insurers will be able to compete for core health insurance products.

Get that, everybody? We need the public option to show people that government is more efficient than private enterprise! It's astounding, but they really do believe it.
 

OK thanks everyone, I think I get it more now. I guess if you think the private sector works like this:

(1) Figure out "the cost."

(2) Add $200 million for the CEOs and shareholders.

(3) Pass cost+profit onto customers as the price.

...then it's obvious that a government-run plan would be cheaper.

Teqzilla, I can't cast aspersions about others' weight, at least not until I get ripped.
 

My understanding is actually similar to Yglesias's. The claim that I've heard is that the public option will be "self-funding".

Where I differ with Yglesias is that I think this public option will have to have very high premiums, and will not out-compete the private sector.

The only way that it can "work" is if most of the uninsured are actually very healthy people. Then, when they are forced to buy health insurance, they might opt for the public plan.

But, if that's true, then all of these horror stories we're being told about people being denied coverage because of chronic conditions, etc, are seriously misrepresenting reality.
 

The Blackadder Says:

The only way that it can "work" is if most of the uninsured are actually very healthy people. Then, when they are forced to buy health insurance, they might opt for the public plan.

Why would they opt for the public plan?
 

"Are you telling me that official "progressive" proposal is that the government is going to offer a health insurance plan with no use of taxpayer funds whatsoever?"

Well there are start up costs but after a few years the dues would cover the claims and admin costs.

"I want to know: (a) Does Yglesias really think a bunch of DC politicians can run a business more profitably than people in the private sector"

Nope, this misses the boat by a country mile.

He thinks they can break even. He thinks the public will 'profit' from the lower costs that will result by increasing competition. He thinks monopsony at the state level & the inelasticity of health insurance combine to give monopsonist insurers little incentive to negotiate hard with the hospital cartels for lower fees when they can just pass along the costs to businesses.

I realize the knee jerk libertarian reaction is to hate government but our system is, by inspection, inferior to a lot of government run systems.

Health care in this country is slowly strangling private businesses -- esp the ability of entrepreneurs to start new small businesses. But keep clicking your heels together and pretending we got it made.
 

Steko,

Seriously, I'm not attacking you here. I don't understand what you are saying.

It sounds like you are saying that the people running the government program will be able to operate like a regular company, without using taxpayer funds, because they will bargain harder with hospitals to keep costs down, and that's how they'll be able to afford to charge lower premiums to customers.

Is that right? I.e. any private insurer has this ability at its disposal right now, it just chooses not to do so?
 

Bet this is how the believers in a public option imagine it will work: They will mandate all providers must see their members and accept a uniform, low reimbursement for procedures. Basically this is what Medicare does already.

I work in a contracting dept for a smallish group of primary care physicians and a few specialists. The thing you guys have to understand is that it's one big cost shift. The major insurers in our area piggyback on Medicare's "bargaining" power and generally reimburse at 105% to 110% of Medicare's reimbursement. Medicare's reimbursements, for most procedure codes at least, have been falling each year and since most of agreements that the major insurers in our area have with us are tied to each successive year's Medicare rates, the reimbursements that they give to us are also shrinking. This leads us to jack up the reimbursement percentages that we require from the smaller, less dominant insurers in our local market. So the losers in the insurance market are the smaller insurers that have to pay the higher reimbursements, or else have no doctors for their members to see, and presumably they must also charge a higher premium than the larger insurers.

I 100% believe that the healthcare industry needs to be liberalized. But I also think that this whole "crisis" is completely overblown. To my knowledge, and despite the continual increase in spending on healthcare, no private health insurance companies are going broke. And most anyone I talk to is generally satisfied with their health insurance plans, despite the increases in costs (which most people have no clue their paying by the way! They think their employer is paying for it.). The player in the healthcare market that is in the worst position is the government run plans--Medicare and Medicaid. They are fundamentally bankrupt, and it's apparent that they cannot continue to provide this massive subsidy on reimbursements. All this subsidy does is increase demand for services and drive up costs for the smaller insurers and the premium payers of all private plans. So it appears to me that the whole "we have XX millions of uninsureds in the US" is just a trojan horse argument for the government to take away the private insurance market and force everyone onto a Medicare-like plan, though in this instance they can ration and reduce costs. This way they don't have to one day tell people "surprise, you know that Medicare you were supposed to get when you turn 65...yeah that's not going to happen".