"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Ha! I thought you were talking about the health plans managed by the
federal
Office of Personnel Management. g They run the FEHB program for federal
employees.
I was wondering what you thought I meant by OPM. 
FWIW, Larry is full of crap. The public option has nothing to do with the
subsidy plans. It scares the hell out of private insurance companies
because, if it's run as well as Medicare, it will beat their prices by
15% -
25% or more.
Will it run as bad as Medicaid?
Each state runs its own Medicaid. State governments in general are
incompetent to do much more than name the official state bird. James Madison
had it right: the more local the government, the less competent it is likely
to be.
I'm a big fan of state sovereignty so we will just have to disagree on that.
The trouble with it is that the private insurers will try to co-opt it,
through lobbying, so that it becomes the sinkhole for people with
pre-existing conditions. Then costs will go up, and the private insurers
can
go back to printing money.
Ed, I hope you realize there are a lot of people that really think the
public option is
going to be affordable as in 100 to 200 bucks a month. That isn't going
to happen.
I don't know who those people are, Wes. For some people with *very* low
incomes, it may well come out to a cost like that -- as will subsidized
private insurance.
As you know since I mention it often, I catch all three hours of C-Span Washington
Journal. The call in portions of the program is where I'm hearing it.
I'd still like to see a rate schedule for the public option, the
particulars of what is
covered, co pays, and all that messy stuff that ruins the dream.
Wes
Have you looked for one? There have been some projections. I haven't paid
much attention to them myself.
My ear radar is on alert, I've never heard anything. My googlefu hasn't turned up
anything solid either.
I'm more interested in putting an end to the
unpaid emergency room care; getting a grip on pharmaceutical costs (which
isn't really in the bill, but which it will enable); and putting the AMA on
the spot to start doing something about health care costs. Right now that's
in the hands of the private insurance companies, and they've failed at it,
utterly. That's not because they're stupid or evil. It's because they have
no incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is quite the opposite.
How do you deal with unpaid emergency care? That appears to be a factor in the overall
cost of insurance since in the end, someone has to pay.
Now on pharmaceutical costs, I don't think we should have to pay a dime more than any
other western country. One world price for the developed nations unless a case can be
made for extra costs for litigation or testing by country. Discounts to third world
countries, I'm willing to pay for.
I've heard that in the case of other countries, they have laws under the WTO agreements
that if a deal on pricing can't be cut, they can make the drug inhouse reguardless of US
patents.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/...a_ato186_e.htm
Go half way down. Closest thing I can find at the moment.
I wish I could give you cites but last night while I was listening to Cspan-1, I heard
that most medical centers have a year over year expectation of a 7% annual increase in
returns.
Once the system is somewhat rationalized, with universal care and some tools
that let us grab medical care and insurance by the balls, it will be a
matter of how intelligently we use those powers. That's a big "if." But
right now, it's running out of control, with no incentives for anyone to
control costs. As David Brooks put it, it's a system of "perverse
incentives."
I can agree that there are a lot of forces in action. Now will both sides agree to
eliminate the perverse parts?
Wes