DIYbanter - View Single Post - CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

PreCog

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Is the drop in support due to weakening of the "Public Option"?

Why should something that is optional be lobbied against? My answer is
that the "Public Option" cause "toes to be stepped on" by competition by a
competitor - please remember that the "Public Option" is an "option"
and not mandatory.

I'd settle for a public option that is merely a competitor. The
Public Option would be, under the rules of the proposals, expressly
forbidden from negotiating with Hospitals and Healthcare providers.
Rather, they will use the MCare pay scales which are mandated by MCare
on a take it or leave it basis (and more and more are leaving it by
refusing to take more than a certain number of government patients).
That alone will make it impossible for the privates to compete. Then
there is another provision that states the Feds will have the ability to
decide what is an acceptable loss ratio (and thus a big part of the
profits) and demand refunds should they go over it one year. However,
there is no mechanism for the private insurers to recoup those years
that they are under the loss ratio.
These are just two very anticompetitive advantages that the
public option would have. If I was cynical, I would suggest that these
(and a couple other things in the proposed law) were put in to hobble
private insurance and get to single payor through the back door. But
since I am not, I won't.

whatever they do they should test it out on ALL govt employees first
before unleashing it on the public. that includes congressmen, senators
and the POTUS. if it survives the govt employee test run then unleash it
on the public. our employees should not get better health care than we get.