What real difference would it make ???


What's the big deal about the numbers of people who may or may not elect to chose the Public Option versus a private plan in the Exchange? If the Public Option plan is to be administered by contracted private companies on a state-by-state, region-by-region basis, why do the national numbers of those available to choose the PO have any meaning?

Read: Who Would Be Eligible For A Public Option? Far more than "10%" of the Population at Maggie Mahar's HealthBeat blog.

If 2% of the population "mandated" to have insurance were to choose the PO that would be equal to 6 million people.

On the other hand . . .

If 25 % of the population "mandated" to have insurance were to choose the PO that would be equal to 75 million people.

Now, putting aside the numbers who may or may not be available to chose the PO, the question arises, who is going to actually be administering this so-called PO plan?

Read: What role will insurance companies play in the "public option"? at PNHP.org.


What seems to be overlooked by the general public is the probability that private companies will be chosen by the HHS to administer these programs on a state-by-state, region-by-region basis. That is, if a state so chooses not to opt out.

From the above post at PNHP.org:

On Saturday, October 24, the Washington Post published an article which said in passing that the "public option" will be run by insurance companies. "The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market," said the article. "It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy." To my knowledge, that is the first time any media outlet or blog, with the exception of the blog maintained by Physicians for a National Health Program, has warned the public that the "public option" will be run by private corporations, not public employees.

In addition: Since the "playing field" is going to supposedly be "level" between the private plans offered through the "Exchange" and that of the PO plan offered through the Exchange what difference or effect will the overall national numbers make in actual bargaining power when the design of the implementation is reduced to a state-by-state, region-by-region basis of costs relative to the expenses of heath care within those particular states or regions?

Other than the possibility of reduced costs though subsidies for individuals and/or families with incomes between 133/150% and 400% of poverty, this can of worms has become quite mixed as to whether or not the implementation of such a plan will benefit the consumer through lower costs.

With coverage being "mandated" and the distinct probability that private for-profit insurance corporations will be contracted and tasked for the implementation and administration of this reform, for damn sure it's going to benefit the private sector insurance companies.

If anyone has a better take on this than me, or sees it in a different light, please chime in with your ideas.

I await with bated breath for Fred Mooten's post to diffuse and confuse this point I've attempted to raise.

~OGD~